Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

Ann/Anne (ship)

Hi, I am looking for build year and port of build for the 627 ton Ann/Anne that was used as a transport in 1810 that was captained by Charles Clarke. She departed Spithead, England on 25 August 1809, called at Rio de Janeiro and arrived in Port Jackson on the 27 February 1810 with 197 male prisoners. She was employed in the serivce of the East India Company for one voyage between 1810-1811. She left Calcutta on 21 September 1810, called at Saugor on 24 November, St Helena on 20 February 1811 and arrrived at the East India Dock on 26 Apr 1811. There has been some confusion as to link to Anne (1799 ship) (384 ton), however the builders old measurement does not match. Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not listed in Rowan Hackman's Ships of the East India Company (World Ship Society, 2001), even though it includes some chartered vessels. However, whether a concidence I know not, Lloyd's Register has a 629-ton ship-rigged vessel, around that time, built c1797 at Batavier. Copper sheathed over boards, 20 guns - owned by Hibbert & others, later Hamilton & others - but no mention of a Clarke being master. Davidships (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: I had identified this vessel, however she seems to be plying Carribean waters. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Newm30: _ do you have access to 'The Times online archive of historic newspapers? Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Unfortunately no I do not have access to 'The Times online archive. I have searched the Australian Trove digitalised newspapers and found reference to her convict voyage and subsequent departure to Calcutta, but nothing else. I am wondering whether she was a British India registered ship? Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I did look there but got no hits with "Ann Clarke" nor with the Anne and Clark variants; also not with "Ann East India" etc. In any case I doubt The Times would have the detail requested, though perhaps something is lurking there. Davidships (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ann and Indiaman, or Anne and Indiaman, might be a productive search term. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

USS Donald Cook protection needed

This page is subject to persistent changes based on Russian propaganda efforts. The issue has been discussed and discussed to no effect. Can some administrator put a long term protection on that page? Palmeira (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Khibiny (electronic countermeasures system) was probably made as a POV fork, though it was mostly copied from .ru wiki. That state media material has been in and out of both articles for a while now. Western media largely ignored the jamming claims, which are unprovable, and the 10% of the crew resigning claims which are absurd. I'm not saying the ship is impossible to jam, but there's no way anyone outside of the crew is going to know, unless the ship had been destroyed in the attack. The claims have been removed again, but someone will re-add them before too long anyway. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the jammers may even have detected some emissions going down, but even that may or may not have been a result of the jamming (we will not know for decades the deception games being played by either side—if ever). Page protection can cut down on the outrageous, completely unlikely claims that keep coming in from obvious propaganda sources. At the same time, the claims need to be mentioned and I think they are. I view this as pretty much like a celebrity or politician's page which is being hit by opponents with sketchy accusations. It apparently needs the same level of "immunity" from that. Palmeira (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected the article for 3 months to stop this campaign. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Palmeira (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently USS Ross (DDG-71) is in the news today for similar SU-24 flyby incidents. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured topic removal candidate: Minas Geraes-class battleship

Hi all, there's a FTRC open at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. It's been very kindly re-opened by GamerPro, and I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1717 drawing of a hoy, with measurements

I found a drawing of a hoy here (p. 22), with measurements, and judging by the style of the legend it clearly dates to the 18th century, but in that source it is rather unhelpfully credited to "Dennis A. Baker, Agricultural Prices, Production and Marketing ... (New York, 1985). That book is only available on Google Books in snippet view, where the drawing cannot be seen, so I've no idea if Baker credits it accurately. I also found the drawing here via TinEye.com, where it seems to be suggested (via Google Translate) that it was made in 1717, but again it is not credited. I think a good-quality copy of this image, obviously now in the public domain, might be useful in the hoy article, if only its original source could be found! Any ideas? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Shipyards and companies

What is the WP:Ships policy on shipyard articles? Is the article recommended to be about the company or about a specific shipyard location? For example, Todd Shipyards. I'm certain there is quite a story to be told about each individual yard and a great many ships built by the company, but I don't know how to approach it. There were yards coast to coast under the Todd name from Brooklyn to San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA and from Seattle to Houston. Each of these individual yards had various other owners and ended up owned by others and some were closed as well. Is a shipyard article approached by location like shipbuildinghistory.com does in the case of Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company which was later named Todd Pacific Shipyards, San Pedro? For example, I feel like it is not helpful to redirect someone to Vigor Shipyards from USS West Zula (ID-3501), but I'm not sure what approach to take to fix it. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd cover them by location. It the case you cite above, maybe an umbrella article on the company and the shipyards it owned, but the shipyards should be capable of sustaining their own articles. If it turns out that a yard can't meet WP:GNG, then a redirect to the company article can cover it. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good, but what would the article title be? Based on shipbuildinghistory.com Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company was the name used c.1918-c.1946, then Todd Shipyards, Los Angeles Division c.1950s-c.mid 1970s then Todd Pacific Shipyards, Los Angeles Division during the era of the construction of the FFG-7 frigates mid-1970s to closure. I was thinking of trying to cover all three eras under then name Todd Pacific Shipyards, Los Angeles Division, but I could see naming it Los Angeles Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally go the most recent version of the name, unless a WP:COMMONNAME argument can be made that one of the older names is significantly more recognisable. Regardless, redirects and indicating all incarnations of the name in the lead should solve most problems regarding article name. -- saberwyn 23:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

New article Todd Pacific Shipyards, Los Angeles Division is the end result of this discussion. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look and I think this is a good approach. Title as the current, or last in many cases, and then bold the previous names in the lead and provide redirects. The one suggestion I'd make would be to indicate the period for the name either with "NAME (19XX—20XX)" in the lead paragraph or infobox. That way someone coming in from a redirect can immediately place the period they were dealing with in the overall scheme. The "family tree" of these yards is sometimes only slightly less complex, intertwined and maze like as that of the shipping companies that often saw very complex cross ownership and switches between holding companies and operating line names. Some of those make my head hurt just trying to untangle for my own understanding. Palmeira (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was considering using a shipyard diagram from MARAD's shipyard reports, for examplePDF page 92. They appear to be PD-USGov from a MARAD publication, but perhaps they came from the shipyard company instead? Does anyone have any thoughts on using those shipyard maps/drawings? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Those look like agency diagrams to me due to the uniformity. If those were mere reprints of shipyard drawings there would be more variation. Generally in my experience an agency using intellectual property of a contractor or by permission will make a note of such use. There is also the question whether such simple representation of obvious geographic data has any copyrightable original work quality in the fist place. Palmeira (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I ran into some of these issues when I was working on Italian naval shipyards earlier this year. Ideally there should be separate articles for the shipyard itself and another for its various owners as the companies often change. A combined article is fine if not enough information is available to split out either the yard itself or the company or if they're identical for the existence of both. Just be sure to use redirects for all the iterations of their names. If you do that the title of the main article becomes kinda irrelevant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon's ship Swiftsure possibly found

Napoleon's ship Swiftsure has been possibly found off Cape York Peninsula, Australia. See article [1]. Would be interesting if someone with any knowledge of her could start an article? Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm up for it. Possibly enough info scattered about out there to make Swiftsure (1811 brig) a start class article at least. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the vessel found off Queensland is not Napoleon's ship. Napoleon's ship is French brig Inconstant (1811), which was a naval vessel and which remained in French service until 1843 when she was broken up.

Category:Sailing ships of France needs to be filled. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be already a plethora of overlapping or inter-related categories in need of some rationalisation: Category:Tall ships of France, Category:Age of Sail ships of France, Category:Age of Sail naval ships of France and now Category:Sailing ships of France. Davidships (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Sailing ships of France merely fits in with all other "Sailing ships of (country)" categories. I think that the other cats you mentioned should be subcats of that. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sailing ship categories

Per the point that Davidships (talk · contribs) raises above, it seems that some rationalization and clarification of catgories may be needed. This is how I see it...

1. "Category:Tall ships of (country)" - should be active tall ships only.
2. "Category:Age of sail ships of (country)" - Should be for historic merchant sailing ship in the age of sail (needs definition, would active before beginning of C20th be good?)
3. "Category:Age of sail naval ships of (country)" - as #2 above, naval vessels only.
4. "Category:Sailing ships of (country)" - main cat for above three. Vessels post "age of sail", whether merchant or naval.

Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work, Category:Age of sail ships of (country) cannot be specified as just merchant shipping, since the category doesn't say that. If we want a merchant category, it should say "merchant" there. Same as how Category:Sailing ships of (country) is not restricted to merchant ships, the age of sail category cannot with that formulation be only for merchants. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@70.51.203.69: Yes it does. Categories can have a note added to them to guide editors in their intended use. However, we could also rename a category (subject to consensus). As we have the naval category, I can see some merit in having a merchant category too. The "Sailing ships of (country)" is proposed to be post-"age of sail" ships, so would cater for merchant and naval vessels. The tall ships category being a subcat. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, categories should be clearly named, and should not rely on category descriptions to separate out ambiguous category names. Does your category description show up in HotCat? Will it show up in the search dropdown indicating a category? As it doesn't, the category should be clearly named to clearly indicate what it is. Adding a single term is not overly burdensome and has the advantage of having a clear name to show it isn't the parent category for the naval category. We should not expect everyone reading ship articles Wikipedia to be fully conversant on every single decision from WPSHIPS. Clear naming helps the readership (as well as new or sporadic editors, or people who wikignome HOTCAT without being WPSHIPS lurkers). -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with IP that "Age of sail merchant ships of (country)" is preferable and unambiguous. Unfortunately Age of Sail is not that helpful with defining the term, suggesting that it lasted until c1850, though noting continuation into the 1920s. Mjroots' suggestion of pre-C20th is probably a realistic working guidance, and I would add "active in commercial service..." - it has occured to me though that "Age of sail..." categories are not actually limited to sailing ships. An alternative approach would be to abandon the "Age of sail..." and reduce the last three listed categories to two: "Sailing merchant ships of (country)" and "Sailing naval ships of (country)"

I don't think that that the "Tall ships" category should be limited to those which are active - once a vessel is so qualified, as per tall ship, it should stay in the category after retirement or loss (eg Bounty (1960 ship)). Davidships (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I like that suggestion, David. A much simpler category tree. Sailing ships of (country) with merchant and naval subcats. No need to worry about other cats that way. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

October 28, 1908 Scientific American

Anyone interested in the Japanese Navy of the time might take a look at this issue I ran across looking into the derelict destroyer Seneca. The cover and photos along with text may be of interest. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a little surprised that my searches for more info on these ships didn't find this article, but the photos are kinda useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Durdondo

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Durdondo. Thanks. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that long standing consensus in AfD has favored presumptive notability for named warships. If this is inaccurate I am open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for build, technical, andor prewar info on SS Portmar

Can anyone help me find construction information, technical data, or pre-WWII history for the steamship Portmar? I'm trying to put together an article on this poor ship (victim of the first and last Japanese attacks in Australian territory) but most of what I can find focuses specifically on these events. There's a link to wrecksite.eu in a few locations (such as the shipindexpage SS Portmar), but when I go to the address, all I get is a blank page with a hyperlink back to the main site. Any help appreciated. -- saberwyn 06:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

She was a Design 1013 ship; basic build and ownership details here (under "Northwest Steel", p. 478). I'll see if I can turn anything else up. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Scheduled to make her trial trip for Green Star 3 December 1919; some other details here; Let me know if you can't access the webpage as it may be behind a paywall. I can supply some additional links about the ship's history if you can see the page, otherwise we will have to figure out another method. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Been on my deep "to do" list, but scarcity of information predating that wartime notoriety has kept the ship there. The index page has it in brief (very!) "West Minsi completed privately as Centaurus, renamed 1930 Portmar" leads to little except some mere mentions of being in for repairs or arrivals. Portmar seems to follow Calmar Steamship Corporation's naming convention with xxxxmar. A few traces such as this court testimony and Canal transits, but all in all the ship appears to be one of those ordinary plodding merchant ships until the war brought extraordinary events. The MARAD VSC offers little except post 20 November 1941 dates and agreements. You will see from that the ship was purchased by War Department, thus fully an Army transport as of 17 November 1942. I have a good fair amount of mentions of the ship in connection to immediate pre war and through sinking activities if you need those. Palmeira (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: The VSC shows one of the interesting bits. The ship was one of those, usually old and nondescript freighters, under Army charter in the last minute pre war attempts to build up Pacific defenses. Note that WSA got the ship 20 Nov 1941 but title transferred at Brisbane just under a year later. It was common to do those actual title transfers for ships fully going into hot war zones rather than "insure" owners through charters. Fairly often I've seen that transfer and then checking the history found a change from rear area supply to hotter work. Palmeira (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Plimsoll Ship Data (i.e. Lloyd's Register) has several entries for Portmar. These will include dimensions, tonnages, owners/operators, official numbers, code letters etc etc. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You'll be needing {{Design 1013 ships}} for the article too. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

All the bare bones stuff is available in the various sources noted here. There just is not much "history" or "story" of the ship until that early WW II period. Of course that applies to quite a few ships made notable and interesting by events—as with quite a few people who went from obscurity to newsworthy and even historic. Palmeira (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

She collided with the Handkerchief Lightvessel on 13 July 1937, severely damaging the lightvessel. (Times, 15 July 1937). Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for the info and links. Between all the suggestions, I've been able to assemble enough of an article to comfortably deploy it to mainspace. Individual replies follow: -- saberwyn 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The Shipscribe link was quite useful, but the newspapers.com link requires a subscription.

@Palmeira: The court transcript unfortunately relates to USS General Omar Bundy (AP-152), which was sold to civilian service and named Portmar post WWII. The Panama Canal transcripts are interesting, but any conclusions I can draw from those (there's a definite trend of steel going west, lumber going east) will be a little original-researchy for my tastes (YMMV). There's very little at MARAD that isn't already cited. The status card is interesting, but I don't know how to cite it and again, any conclusions I draw would be original research (The first date corresponds to the charter of the ship for a military cargo run to the Philippines... while en route, Pearl Harbor happened. The second probably has to do with increasing submarine activity in Australian waters... Portmar didn't go to the war, the war came to her).

Citing the MARAD VSC is a problem? Taking its information is OR? That I do not get at all. MARAD has made it quite clear. On 20 November 1941 at Portland, Oregon the ship was delivered from Calmar to WSA and placed under a Transportation Corps, the TC, agreement. On 17 November 1942 the title was transferred from Calmar to the War Department by purchase. Now, the fact that those purchases form a pattern for ships going from the dangers of convoys to a full military operation is experience and perhaps OR—except it can be documented. When the military needed to send ships with full military control of crew into certain situations, or guranteed loss as with the Normandy blockships, they became government property. The purchase had zero to do with "increasing submarine activity in Australian waters" as you conclude. Plenty of ships remained under WSA/MOWT agent operation in sub infested waters all over the world. Portmar became part of the Army's SWPA fleet concurrently with that purchase after she was salvaged and reconditioned by U.S. Army port-battalion troops. Portmar "went back to war" as a U.S. Army transport with crews under U.S. Army control. (Masterson, p. 338, 616—617) Palmeira (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have two separate problems here with the MARAD VSC. Lets rephrase them to hopefully make the issues more transparent.

• Problem One is "How do I format the citation for the Vessel Status Card file card for use in Wikipedia?" Is there a specific way to render the information and its origin, or is it a case of cite web to the rescue, fill in what fragments you can, ignore the rest?
• Problem Two is "How do I interpret the information on this card and mesh it with what I know or can cite elsewhere?" There is not enough data on the card for me, as someone unfamiliar with the formatting of Vessel Status Cards of the Maritime Administration of the United States of America (or whatever organisation was responsible for the card's creation in World War II), to effectively interpret the information being presented. Using prior knowledge, I made assumptions, and with none of the sources I have access to collaborating these assumptions, I was uncomfortable in using the Portmar Vessel Status Card as the sole source to support those assumptions. As you have clearly pointed out, my conclusions were incorrect. You made other conclusions based on the prior knowledge you have, along with prior experience in interpreting the information presented on the Vessel Status Card. You have access to sources that support your interpretation of the information on the Vessel Status Card (the Masterson text you refer to), which from the look of the page ranges refered to contain useful context and would possibly be a better source to cite to in the first place. Problem solved.

If you have any further problems with my incapability of using specialist sources, I would appreciate you not biting my head off for my ignorance when raising them. -- saberwyn 13:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Did not think I was "biting your head off" just pointing out these are no more OR than citing Lloyd's, The U.S. Declaration of Independence for John Hancock as a signatory or any other such source that is fact and fully available to the public vice a private stash from an archive. The MARAD database is the authoritative source on these wartime and other dispositions of U.S. and even some foreign shipping. While Gill is excellent from the Australian operations perspective he is not for this sort of thing. Somewhere MARAD had (they keep reshuffling the site) information on the abbreviations used. The date stuff is clear and note it even has the effective local time of the action. I'll see if I can relocate the page, but there are not that many and the ones most seen are GAA=General Agency Agreement (standard WSA/agent form); TCA=Transportation Corps Agreement, the arrangement in which a WSA hull is allocated and operating under a specific Army charter (gives more military control); BB=Bareboat charter. As for the cite the cite web format is what I use. The easiest way would be for me to do an edit, but you are working the article and I hate it when I've put time into a serial, active update and find "EDIT CONFLICT" notices. There are several things Gill doesn't mention that apply. The ship did not get to the Philippines to unload, they were diverted much as with the Pensacola Convoy as seen in the new link to DANFS. I can feed the references to you or, when you reach a pause, make some changes with cites. Palmeira (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for my reply and the offence it has caused, and am choosing to disengage to avoid further misunderstanding and conflict. Thank you for your contributions to the article. -- saberwyn 02:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not offended. I appreciate your taking Portmar on. Also a suggestion. We have a number of "stovepipe" articles in ships and military history that cover facets of the same pretty traumatic set of events. The start is in an increased concern in the Commonwealth nations in the Australia/New Zealand area and in London itself (pretty busy on more immediate matters though) and the U.S. about Japan's intentions and increasing aggressive behavior. Japan's control of the central Pacific led to a start on the South Pacific air ferry route in World War II where U.S. advance units found New Zealand engineers already working and joined forces. Those ships of the Pensacola Convoy left Hawaii taking the southern route via Australia to the Philippines and ended up becoming the advance element of U.S. Army Forces in Australia. Portmar was a small part of a second wave of diverted ships, some of which got drafted to attempt resupply of the Philippines and again "diverted" into the Java debacle. Then the fall of the Malay barrier, Australia's fittest troops in North Africa, a scramble to defend Australia and the return of those troops with a start of U.S. troops arriving to begin turning things around. I think those stories need more pulling together so readers today can begin seeing the larger picture. To some extent I've been adding bits and pieces with the KPM ships (see User:Palmeira/sandbox for old notes), the few that attempted or actually made the Philippine run and some of the Java ships. I'd like to see more cross links and overview. Palmeira (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thanks for the template. I've looked at the Plimsoll data and extracted a few tidbits, but theres a real density of information there and I'm scared I'll misinterpret something.

We now have the SS Portmar (1919) article. I've expanded it a bit, but reading the above comments and the article, there are discrepancies re ownership during WWII. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. There are no real questions on ownership. The U.S. Maritime Commission/Maritime Administration data is quite clear. The ship was a Calmar ship under charter agreements until purchase by War Department 17 November 1942 in Brisbane when she became an Army owned transport. The only foggy bit there is "Basis to WSA" 20 November 1941 which was actually prior to the split in which the Commission designed and built ships with WSA to acquire and operate commercial hulls, those built as commercial types and even foreign ships that were taken over for the war. As soon as the split took place the ship indeed was WSA operated but under the Transportation Corps Agreement, as a ship allocated specifically to Army, rather than the WSA's general one. Palmeira (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ship articles over at the Wikimedia blog

Hi all, two ship articles, Girl Pat and SS Arctic disaster, were featured in a recent Wikimedia blog post. I'd love to get your feedback! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Girl Pat does not fall under this WP, being less than 100'/100 tons. I've improved it a bit though. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mj. I didn't check to for a WPP tag, but I assume that most of the members of this project would be interested anyway. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ed Erhart (WMF): Although not tagged at the time, the article does fall under WP:MILHIST. I've flagged it up there in the hope of expansion of details of her wartime service. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked ship details of Girl Pat and Gipsy Love(sic). Nice article.Davidships (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Warship"

See WT:MILHIST where a notice about a discussion about what is a warship has been posted -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ship disambiguators RFC had been bot-archived

The RFC on ship article titles at WT:Article titles has been bot-archived. Is there any chance someone uninvolved could go through and determine a result? -- saberwyn 23:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Was there a consensus? There appears to be no-consensus. How is WP:SHIPNAME effected if there is a consensus?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was on the disambiguator in article titles for warships. Currently, it is a mix of pennant/hull number or year of launch. The change to WP:SHIPNAME being offered by the RFC was to make the launch year the disambiguator in 100% of cases (forex: the US battle ship Missouri would be changed from the current USS Missouri (BB-63) to USS Missouri (1944)). The RFC was created following the repeated no-consensus outcomes over numerous discussions on the subject here and at WT:MILHIST (most recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_44#On_hull.2Fpennant_numbers, with links to other discussions added in this edit) with the apparent intent of securing a consensus in favour of 100% date disambiguation by exposing it to a wider audience. -- saberwyn 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I count 13 supports and 5 opposes (including Ed). Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what does it take? 75% or 100% support? Closing and archiving before a resolution while the trend is going as strongly (13 to 5 (72%) for) as that seems a short circuit of any due process here. Worse than the U.S. Senate! Palmeira (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being naive but I thought that the important thing was the strength of the arguments not the number of !votes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you are "being naive" as to most making arguments, pro and con, their arguments seem strong. I certainly think the naval hull/pennant numbers are not the best way to go and think I made fairly strong arguments as to why. That didn't convince all so some more empirical method is needed to avoid these deadlocks where a minority of unconvinced (pro or con) can effectively "filibuster" the proposals. A 72% for would even pass the Senate! Palmeira (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It was never maliciously closed, just effectively abandoned. The last comments I can identify were made by me on 16 May, preceded by Snow Rise on 7 May. By this point, discussion had long petered out, with the last bits of back-and-forth during 1-3 May. Legobot removed the RFC tag in this edit on 27 May, with the edit summary "Removing expired RFC template", 11 days after the last contribution to the discussion, and almost a month after ongoing discussion ceased. It was then autoarchived by Lowercase sigmabot III on 4 June, the standard 7 days that WTalk:Article titles has autoarchiving set to. Two days later, I posted here asking if someone could determine what/if the outcome was, and to draw attention to the fact that the RFC appeared to have been abandoned. -- saberwyn 12:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have requested that an uninvolved individual assess the discussion and determine an outcome at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles.2FArchive_52.23Using_launch_dates_in_place_of_hull_or_pennant_numbers_in_ship_article_titles. -- saberwyn 21:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As of this post, there appears to have been no response to this request, but the closure request board has a heavy backlog. -- saberwyn 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just closed the RFC. AlbinoFerret 22:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The diff of the closure is here. Copying the closing statement here for convenience. -- saberwyn 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus to support the proposal. No specific language was presented and so there is no consensus on what that language is supposed to be. The majority argument centred around the fact that it was easier to disambiguate ships, that hull numbers are often reused, and that it is done on commercial ships already. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Off the money

I was just looking at Hamilton & I noticed the template for the class italicizes Treasury. Since there were no ships of that name, IMO the italics are mistaken. Can somebody fix the template? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with {{sclass}} but the correct template for the Treasury class is {{sclass2-}}. Hamilton is fixed (2 places).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

MV Nimpkish

The MV Nimpkish article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Articles about names warships or ships designed to carry passengers are almost always going to be notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd go further, almost all steamships and motor vessels that fall under the remit of this WP are capable of meeting WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

List of world's longest ships

Hello. I am having a conflict with User:Mkmillenium at List of world's longest ships, up to the point where he has removed my writings from the talk page where I invited him to discuss his edits on the article. Furthermore, I feel like I'm perhaps trying to push my point of view too much, so outside opinion on how the top entry on the list should be dealt with would be welcome. Tupsumato (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted his edit - your version seems perfectly fine to me - and left a note on his talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems my post on the talk page is gone again, though. Tupsumato (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Restored and warned the user for that as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For info, I have previously blocked this editor. Seems to have problems collaborating with others. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew it would happen!

Two ships, with the same name (Hokusei Maru), built by the same builder, and launched in the same year! At least their GRTs are different, so a dab by GRT is called for methinks.

Perhaps better by shipping line? Port of registration? Just a thought. Shem (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

All things which are more liable to change than GRT. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

How about using the former name to disambiguate? Hokusei Maru (ex-Nanyo Maru No. 1) and Hokusei Maru (ex-Nanyo Maru No. 3)? Or just Hokusei Maru (shorter) and Hokusei Maru (longer)... :> Tupsumato (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would choose the "ex-" method -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure people would necessarily know which was the longer or shorter of the two. Sticking with year and GRT for a dab. Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have diambiguated by month before where a ship with the same name has been launched in the same year? (e.g. November 1920) I just cannot remember which one. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Newm30: - that is a valid method, if the month of launch of both vessels is known and they are different. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, inevitable. Anyone working with the "President" ships will pull some hair untangling the recycling of those names and I've edited several pages where just the line's renaming in close sequence has been confused. I've recently run across one in which I suspect a referenced, but no longer available, news article is referring to a name in connection with a hulk a year after the name was active for another ship. Here is almost what you found, excepting the ships were built by separate builders:

• President Grant (1921) EFC Design 1095, "502" launched as Centennial State (O/N 221203) by New York Shipbuilding that became President Adams 1922—1938 and then President Grant ending up as the WSA transport supporting Army's Pacific operations that grounded on Uluma reef in the vicinity of Milne Bay early morning of 27 February 1944 and was a constructive loss. If I or someone else gets around to this one there will be a decision to be made.
• President Grant (1921) EFC Design 1029, "535" launched as Pine Tree State (O/N 221633) by Bethlehem Steel that became USS Harris (APA-2).

Name fun and games. Because name at launch seems a bit more stable as it appears there is some attempt not to duplicate other line's names or be sequential I have personally concluded it might be better to have the articles always titled with original name and year with redirects from subsequent names, even if a later name is much more famous. Then as above, even that is not always a "solution." Palmeira (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Saved by a month! Digging deep into text instead of tables, Lloyd's and such, is a reference to Centennial State being launched 11 December 1920 by New York Shipbuilding. So, we have a President Grant (1920) that works. As a note, I've frequently found December launches result in ships dated the next year in many references with at least some of those probably focusing on completion or delivery dates. Palmeira (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Cruise ship itinerary

I have noticed on several pages about cruise ships sections concerning the itineraries of many ships are outdated and need correction. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need itineraries? They will inevitably become outdated, and WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We should just point to the equivalent WikiTravel/WikiVoyage page instead, and let them updated their info instead. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point.SpiritedMichelle (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Outside assistance requested

At Lettie G. Howard‎, Editor ‎Aaronrsingh, who may be connected to the ship in real life, has added unsourced and, I believe, unencyclopedic information to the article. This editor has reverted my reverts and is apparently ignoring a message that I posted on his ‎talk page. I will not revert again lest I fall afoul of the three revert rule. Opinions? Should the new information in the article be removed?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's unsourced, and apart from the potential conflict of interest issues, is so riddled with jargon that the meaning is unclear - what exactly does it mean by "programming aboard Lettie G. Howard" does this mean the ship is used for some sort of training - if so, what and of who? What does "reinstate Lettie's COI" mean. Until the changes are clearer, it is difficult to see whether they belong or not.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Build place identfication help

I am researching the ship Reliance (347 ton) (bm) that was built in 1807 and last listed in Lloyd's in 1837. She is listed as being built at Coring and later listed as Goriga? Can someone identify this location? Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What country? Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a British registered ship, however country of build is not known. Newm30 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Coringa, Andhra Pradesh, I think. "Grenville also noted that ships of war and merchandise not exceeding 500 tons were being built with facility, convenience and cheapness at the ports of Coringa and Narsapore."[2]. Can't explain the later corruption. Davidships (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Newm30 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

New category/s required

Currently we have no category for ships built in Indonesia, as well as ships built during the Dutch colonial rule. Any suggestions? Regards. Newm30 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest - Category: Ships built in Indonesia, Category: English ships built in Batavia and Category: Dutch ships built in Batavia - Thoughts? Newm30 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought "Ships built in Indonesia" and "Ships built in the Dutch East Indies". How many "English ships built in Batavia" were there? Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Newm30: The categories should be "Ships built in Indonesia" for those built since independence, and "Ships built in the Netherlands East Indies" for those built before. If further subcategorisation is required (which I doubt), then Jakarta / Batavia are the names of the city in those periods. Be BOLD and create the categories if you think they are needed. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on List of aircraft carriers by country and HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22)

A Canadian ip editor is edit warring to push a rather ridiculous conspiracy theory about HCMS Bonaventure (i.e. that Bonaventure and Vikrant were swapped during scrapping of Bonaventure), claiming to be carrying out "Canadian Government Edits"! and that those who revert these changes are communists. More eyes (and possibly semi-protection) are needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for one week. Repost here if disruption continues. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

The MS Southward article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Type 054A frigate; number active

The Jane's article China commissions Type 054A frigate into East Sea Fleet by Ridzwan Rahmat (20 January 2015) reports the commissioning of Huanggang, and that:

The PLAN is expected to operate a class of up to 22 ships and, according to IHS Jane's , Huanggang is the 20th vessel.

Does "20" refer to the total number of ships commissioned? Or does it mean Huanggang is the 20th ship that began construction or the 20th noticed by Jane's?

I believe the latter interpretation is more likely, based on the Jane's article China adding towed sonars to Type 054A, Type 056 vessels by Andrew Tate (31 August 2014) which states:

The images, published on the cjdby.net website, show a large aperture cut out of the transom and installation of mechanical handling gear on Type 054A hulls 19 & 20 (Pennant number 576, Huangshi and 577, Huanggang ).

Your thoughts are appreciated to clear up a dispute in the Type 054A article. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted RevelovingPersonalityConduct's last edit. The reasons are clearly stated as below.

Adding additional reliable Chinese source to back up the truth.

[3] This source is from Chinese news media and it is original not some redirected stuffs.

The above source clear says that there are in fact more than just 20 054A active in the Chinese navy. "中国海军装备的054A型护卫舰数量已经超过了20艘，成为当仁不让的主力舰艇." Translation: " Chinese navy has commissioned more than 20 054A, 054A has become the work horse of the navy."

This material confirmed what Janes source stated. See Jane's source [4]

At last to debunk "RevelovingPersonalityConduct's" argument. His source is from the Dod Annual report. Which is from 2014, as its materials repeated stated:

1. "Preparation of this report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $92,000 in Fiscal Years 2014-2015. This includes $3,000 in expenses and $89,000 in DoD labor."

This clearly means that this report covers stuffs from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014. Yet RevelovingPersonalityConduct stated that as of May/31/2015, which is clearly not true.

2. At page 5 of the DoD report: "During 2014, the PLA continued to improve its capabilities for theater contingencies, including: cruise missiles; short- and medium range ballistic missiles; high performance aircraft; integrated air defense; information operations; and amphibious and airborne assault. "

Once again, it says that it is from 2014 no where near did it mentioned May/31/2015. As we all know by know, China commissioned additional 3 054A by June, 29/2015 as it was stated on multiple reliable Chinese and western English source ! Yet, he keeps arguing.

3. At page 12 of the DoD report it once again stated: "In 2014, China started reclaiming land and building enhanced infrastructure at its outposts in the Spratly Islands. When complete, these facilities could include harbors, communications and surveillance systems, logistics support, and at least one airfield. "

Throughout the DoD annual report. It mentioned the year 2014 countless amount of time, but NEVER once did it mention May/2015. Yet he keeps trying to push his agenda through. The same behavior can be found on the Type 93 submarine page as well. He keeps using outdated source to vandalize the 093 article as well by say that there are only 2 093 active as of May/29/2015, where there are sources proving the otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.123 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet with overwhelming evidence, RevelovingPersonalityConduct keeps deleting recent, updated, and reliable source and only keeps his own source. More importantly, he lied about the time and date of his source by stating that: "As of May/31/2015." When the truth from his own source clearly stated that the materials he present was only valid from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014.

Therefore, with the above overwhelming evidence. I reverted his edit. But I did not remove his source, simply corrected it.

Thank you.

--199.116.175.123 (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. You're finally deigning to use talk pages. I direct interested parties to Talk:Type 054A frigate to avoid duplication. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Mistral-class ships

Since France and Russia cancelled the deal recently, the articles on the two Mistral-class ships, Vladivostok and Sevastopol, should be renamed. Any ideas? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until they're sold to another country and renamed - from what I've seen, sales to Saudi Arabia and/or Egypt are rumored. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, per Parsecboy. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No basis for any change under WP:COMMONNAME. The vessels are not known as anything else. Davidships (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

help needed on ambiguous links in ship articles

Hi, there are just about a hundred articles in WikiProject Ships that have an ambiguous link needing to be fixed. Regular editors at the wp:DPL project, and me now too, are fighting towards elimination of all-but-brand-new ambiguous links in Wikipedia within a year now, and could use your help!

Here is an application of CatScan search tool to find WP:SHIPS dabs which takes a minute or two to run. Scroll down to see results. Running it now yields 96 articles, including:

1. Aetna-class ironclad floating battery (delinked connection to Thomas Lloyd dab)  Done
2. Aikoku Maru (1940)  Done
3. Boat building  Done
4. Brazilian tanker Almirante Gastão Motta (G23)  Done
5. Finnish submarine Vesikko  Done
6. French ship Hercule (1836)  Done
7. HMS Blossom (1806)  Done
8. Japanese cruiser Takasago  Done
9. List of German Navy ship classes  Done
10. List of shipwrecks in April 1943  Done

Programmer/editor dispenser's DabSolver tool can find the ambiguous term and help you fix it. Just paste in the article name, run it, and you only have to pick which target the term should be linked to, from a drop down menu, as long as the intended target is given as an option on the disambiguation page. DabSolver usually works, except for ship articles it sometimes turns out that the ambiguous term is a ship's name hidden inside an {{SS}} template call, in which case you could probably only find it by checking what each ship name in an article links to. Clear the ambiguous link by finding the more precise link intended, or by unlinking the term. The Daily Disambig shows the overall project's progress. It would be great to see the ship articles get struck off wp:DPL's big working list! TIA for any help. :) cheers, --doncram 05:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed one. Might be usseful to list them all for attention. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you hit the link provided by User:Doncram, you get a live list. I don't think there's any need to list them here, and then try to keep that (dead) list up to date. I note the tally is down to 86 (from 96). Shem (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I get a message that the database connection is down. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I get that on Dab Solver (but it works fine); CatScan seems fine (although there is a bit of a lag - List of shipwrecks in April 1943 is still showing but you've done it - and Dab Solver confirms that). Tally is now 85 (84 with List of shipwrecks in April 1943)! Shem (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I just struck out 2 by Shem and 1 by me from 10 listed above. Hmm, this is a bit inefficient, to cut-and-paste from the list above, only to find there's no dablink to fix, and then see in history that Shem did it already. :) So it would be better to select from a newly generated CatScan report. When I run it again, maybe 20 minutes later, it was updated. Tally is now 83.

About the Finnish submarine Vesikko, the ambiguous link is Madsen within a tabulation of the vessel's armaments. Choices to fix it with are Madsen machine gun, Madsen-Saetter machine gun, Madsen M-50 or Madsen 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon. But there are some extra numbers in the tabulation of Vesikko's armaments that I don't understand, and I wonder if the Madsen articles should be moved to more descriptive titles first. (At least 3 out of 4 are machine guns, so isn't the first title too broad? For the last one, why is "20 mm" in the article name, when it covers other models?). Someone more familiar with the topic area needs to see if it makes sense and pick the right link. --doncram 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I cleared most of the lists of shipwrecks - 1927 is an inter-language link so will need to be done manually. We may need the assistance of MILHIST members for some of the links. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like some good work is going on. Doncram - it sounds like you might want to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history if you haven't already done so. They may be able to help with your machine gun. Shem (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest count: 65. Shem (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now: 58. Shem (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest count: 37. Shem (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

All done now? Shem (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Running the CatScan report again shows all 96 have been cleared. A big thank you to Shem1805 who cleared 52, Mjroots who cleared 9, and others for your cooperation in taking this on. And it's to the credit of everyone in the Wikiproject, also, to have tended the project's articles very carefully already: having just 96 out of about 35,000 mainspace articles was a pretty low rate to start with. Zero out of 35,000 is amazing! For wp:DPL, I thank you. :) --doncram 06:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Naval Institute Processings?

In our list of 'journals' cited by Wikipedia, a source named Naval Institute Processings seems to often have been used. I am almost entirely sure this is meant to be Naval Institute Proceedings, so I created the redirects accordingly.

This is still weird to me, and such a widespread typo must have a certain cause. If I'm wrong let me know. If I'm right, someone will want to a database search for "Naval Institute Processings" and replace it with "Naval Institute Proceedings" and investigate why this is so widespread.

Regards, Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Naval Institute Processings shows three links; this page and two others. At the two others is a link to a Wikipedia search page but that search returns results for various combinations of the three words so I added quotes and got less than twenty hits which I've fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out in [5] (and likely elsewhere), that it would be much better to use |journal=[[Naval Institute Proceedings]] than |journal=[[United States Naval Institute|Naval Institute Proceedings]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. But, since the choice of the target Wikipedia page was made by the editors of those (mostly) carrier strike group articles (there are a few others), as is their right to do, I am content to leave it to those editors to fix or not fix as they choose.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{{sclass-}} issue

To our resident template coders - a problem with the template has come to my attention. {{Sclass|Lord Clive|monitor}} should link to both the Lord Clive-class monitor and monitor (warship) articles, but it instead links to the monitor dab page. Can we fix the template so it points to the right article? Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Sclass|Lord Clive|monitor||warship}} → Lord Clive-class monitor

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trappist. Llammakey (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:SS Cheribon. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ship naming, re-designations and source

I would like to request, when possible, that ship re-naming and re-designations be moved closer to the top of articles and even mentioned in the lead. Actually policy reflects that alternate names be placed in the lead in bold.

I have ran into confusion because we typically use the historical name and current sources regularly use the last name and designation. With literally 1000's of military vessels re-named and re-designated, it would be easier to ensure the right ship can be referenced. I have ran into several instances where one vessel was rename so another could use the name. I found a source Towingline.com that seems to be a vital source of information. It may already be in use but several articles that I lightly perused only had a single source. Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, Trappist the monk (talk) nailed it. Towingline is just a copy of Navy History and Heritage Command's DANFS and by no means "a vital source of information" for referencing. The "ATO12 – Sonoma" is an exact copy of Sonoma with a bit of formatting very similar to that used for all those DANFS (Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships) copies here that refer to that "single source" you seem to have run across. For most Navy vessels that is the source from which almost all others flow. Palmeira (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ship names are sometimes a bit contentious here as seen in previous discussions and some downright confused ideas on what constitutes a name. For example, the name of a U.S. Navy ship. "USS" (denoting only a state of being in commission and honorific popularly used for ships once in commission) and hull numbers are not a part of the name anymore than "Senator" or "President" is the name of the persons holding those offices. We don't see "Senator Henry Clay (KY)" as the name of that historical person, in fact we do not see that in biographical titles here, yet we constantly see the equivalent for ships. A recent discussion here leaned toward a change but went nowhere. In fact, SS, MS, MV, RV and all the other prefixes that have become a cottage industry over in ship prefixes are not a part of the name itself, only designating propulsion and plenty of SS have become MS/MV. They are useful only in helping indicate a vessel of some sort in titles, but they are no more names than "Miss." and "Mrs." (and that declining practice is somewhat parallel to SS becoming MS/MV) or "Dr." or other forms of address are a person's name.

That said, I agree the sequence of names should be in the introduction, bold face and my practice now is to make the listing in the info box as well as recently with Leonard Wood. Where a ship legitimately has a non launch name that is so dominant as to be the title I think the brief introduction history should be chronological and include all the previous names and those should have redirect pages. A real problem here is the dominance of DANFS, simply because Navy keeps such loving and detailed records of almost every scow it owned (Yacal and somebody will someday do USS YD 56—and note neither warrants that "USS" either), and that public domain source is what gets here (often direct copies) for ships even when they have significant history outside the U.S.N. Palmeira (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A cursory inspection shows that the Towingline source is simply a repackaging of DANFS.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, another DANFS repackager! They are all over and personally I do not think this site should be just another. So many "articles" here are nothing but copies of DANFS that perhaps one page of links could replace vast swathes of Wiki. It appears NHHC is doing some work to make navigating their new DANFS section something short of a click through nightmare. The advantage of NHHC DANFS over any of the many duplicate sites is that apparently they have some intention of updating some of the old pedantic stuff with new information out of Ship's History Branch. I've run across a couple that have revised and expanded the old print versions that were transcribed to sites such as Haze Gray (did some of that myself long, long ago when NHC was just getting on the web). Palmeira (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't have time to look closely at it then thought I better inquire. I see what you mean about "the source from which almost all others flow.". I do have hesitancy of total dismissal with the comments (concerns) about "repackaging", weighed with "...updating some of the old pedantic stuff with new information out of Ship's History Branch. Apparently, examining information from a site such as Towingline needs to be checked against DANSF, to see if any "extra" information was something updated, otherwise it would be like using two different news sources, that both came from the same AP wire release right? :Of course I like to see that an old boat is still afloat so if I find more recent information to that effect I think it is important. I have ran into many instances where DANSF has recorded as "sold for scrape" and that is the end. The Tutahaco (YTB-524 then YTM-524) is one. What I am gathering here is that an article does not need to be USS Tutahaco (YTB-524), just Tutahaco (YTB-524) and the YTM-524 change in the lead and or article body? I ask this because many red linked names might have USS so clicking on that to create an article (I am in the process) automatically adds USS. :I am a little confused on the discussion of using USS, SS, SMS, HMS and the likes as many featured articles do just that. I did see that MV New Carissa was redirected to New Carissa with M/V in the lead. The MV Arctic Sunrise retains the name, and I would think famous enough without the MV. One editor even stated, "Arctic Sunrise is MY not MV".: I suppose it is a little nice with the many thousands of hits on a search to have something, sometimes, that gives a little extra disambiguation. There were many ships with SS around the WWI era (before, during, and after) that has SS, that endured many name changes, and many articles still use SS. My question is: If a ship article on an old SS ship is created has it become preferential to leave the SS off and put the year like "ship name" (1914)? :I am glad to see that moving the name up is agreeable. I was checking because I have had reversions of added content where that was contested. Apparently it is easier to just "revert" an entire edit, killing off good added content and references, because "We don't need to move the name up as it is covered in the lead.", even though it was at the end of the fourth paragraph. I can see some reasoning why editors make thousands of simple edits (we know it isn't to get the edit count) as opposed to one edit to cover it all. Otr500 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First, your discussion of Tutahaco. The tug was the only vessel with the name in the Navy so the hull numbers are not useful for disambiguation and useless in the title. I'd recommend simply "Tutahaco (tug)" for a title with redirects created to cover the "USS" and hull numbers. Then, since the DANFS for Tutahaco is just two short sentences I'd have to ask how this small vessel meets notability requirements here. For ships we have a presumed notability, challenged by some outside the ships group, for larger naval vessels in particular, but an "in service" yard craft with nothing beyond it was built and served 30 some years in the 10th Naval District? Unless you have considerably more about an "afterlife" that makes the tug notable you can expect a challenge on that. As for name format I personally prefer the name of the ship followed by "(ship)" instead of SS/MV and all the other options (some of which 99% or readers would not recognize) with the launch date as final disambiguator when necessary. A proposal to drop all the internal naval administrative notations of hull/pennant numbers dissolved without resolution, though the majority seemed to lean toward the change to ship name and launch year.

There are plenty of vessels not built for the Navy for which the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships has either little or even erroneous information about those prior years and more than a few with very little about post Navy days. Where DANFS has definite scrapping information, company and date, it is usually pretty accurate. Where that is sketchy you often find they did no real tracking after disposal by Navy. In the post WW II/Korea world leading to the first hard copy publication there were lots of Navy people, including reserves, available to work with The Histories Branch digging through Navy's records and they produced most of what is now on line that is just a copy of those many volumes of thick books. Now, with severely limited personnel (drastuc budget cuts) their hopes of revising some with up to date information is at best crawling along. In any case, Navy's interest in the ships is the Naval service, not prior or post Navy history so they have little or no time to dig into other sources to fill that out. Palmeira (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say that, while I very much respect Palmeira's contributions to the topic area, I disagree with some of his views, such that some DANFS ships are not sufficiently notable to be included on Wikipedia, that we should use the format "Shipname (ship)" instead of "SS/MV/whatever shipname", or drop the "USS" or hull numbers and so on. So you should not necessarily assume Otr that the views of one user (including my own) are necessarily reflective of the project as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just my opinion, well supported in reliable and professional references. Wikipedia is to some extent creating its own little pocket of ship lore here—yet it is supposed to reflect reliable sources. No, "USS" and a hull number is not part of a ship's name—and that is in accord with the people that bestow those names and designations. Attaching USS to a ship never in commission is just flat wrong and an indicator of ignorance of what the term even means. By the way, that issue was decided here years ago. You can disagree, but it is a bit like disagreeing with the U.S. House of Representatives on who is or is not a member or with a company on its corporate name. They are the deciding authority, not us. As for "Shipname (ship)" for titles I'm not particularly fond of it. I find the standard, widely used SS, MV and such useful there. I do object to the constant addition of obscure prefixes every time someone runs into some use somewhere of some new thing. Pretty soon we will probably see RHAVDV (red hulled autonomous vehicle deployment vessel) as a prefix! If I recall the closure of the "name (year)" was trending toward that despite your and other's objections. I think reopening with a definite proposed new policy text might carry the day and get us out of what is something of an unprofessional fix. My view, and one I will stand by, is that anyone contributing here owes it to the reader to learn enough about these things to at least be accurate in the clear basics. We can all get into a mess with things such as tonnages and dimensions where different methods are used, but what composes a ship's name is a basic. Palmeira (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I supported the change to "Shipname (year)", as I'm inclined to agree that in many cases that is the most useful identifier. Given that this has not been adopted, however, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be dropping hull numbers from individual articles, because that will lead to inconsistency.

You are of course correct that "USS" should not be used for uncommissioned ships, but the status of some ships isn't always clear. If DANFS says a ship was never commissioned, it's fine to leave the "USS" off, but should we do the same for ships that simply don't mention a commission date? That's a more difficult question to answer. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think hull numbers in the title are misleading and help cause readers without much Navy knowledge to conclude they are part of the name. I also think they "got there" because a lot of editors thought they were being "naval" when in reality they knew just enough to be misleading. Anyway, they are there in so many titles and a fix would be a long and tedious process. I keep considering reopening the proposal with a definite markup of the changes needed, the lack of which that other time seemed to be an issue. Then I'd rather flesh out the vast backlog of ships with histories that are so neglected beyond DANFS or without any naval service at all. I do try to make clear in any edits I do that classification and hull number changes are administrative only—as does DANFS is one reads closely.

On your second comment and question I think one has to understand why the U.S.N. is so in to ship histories even for minor little craft. First it is a love of the things that make a navy a navy. The other reason, and the one that makes sense of "commissioned 14 August 1944, Comdr. Marion C. Thompson in command" for an obscure, not particularly notable transport is the difference between Navy and Army view of ships. No stars ever fell on an Army officer for "command of a ship" and none fell on Navy line officers without command of a ship in commission until perhaps some Airdales made it in fairly recent times. NHC/NHHC is very careful to record that commissioning if it took place and I've run into only one or two ship histories, turn of the 20th Century period, where DANFS "cannot find a record" or is doubtful. The whole commissioning thing is deeply tied up with advancement in Navy and thus very important to record. Any officer noted as in command of a ship between that initial commissioning and the decommissioning date punched an important ticket. Those in command of a ship "in service," such as some ex-USS serving as training or service force, got no such punch and were either on the way out or very junior getting a little punch. The vast number of types that were never commissioned, with some very rare exceptions, such as anything with a "Y" hull number were "commanded" by noncoms or sometimes warrant officers. If the official ship history does not mention "commissioned/decommissioned" or explicit doubt (a very few) the ship was likely as a snowball in hell of being commissioned. Palmeira (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There are actually some valid arguments for retaining hull numbers - for one thing, they readily identify the ship type in a way that launch dates do not. And while it's certainly true that a ship's hull number can change, in most cases the most historically significant service will occur under a given hull number. On the other hand, pennant numbers on British capital ships make for pretty obscure identifiers when dates would be much more informative. So it's a bit of a mixed bag (as these things often tend to be). There are a couple of arguments however that I don't think were canvassed last time. Firstly, what happens to ship referrals in actual articles if we moved to year identifiers? I think it important that hull numbers be retained as identifiers within articles as it instantly identifies the type of ship without the need for clicking on the link, but arguably moving to year identifiers would discourage that practice. Secondly, I think we would have to rewrite all the ship templates so they could include both hull/pennant numbers and year dates - a year date to identify the article, and hull/pennant number for display, for example, which could get quite messy. These are just some additional issues that might need to be considered.

Regarding the commissioning issue - your analysis sounds well informed and sensible, though I have no idea how accurate it might be. I'm still not fully convinced that leaving "USS" off articles that don't mention a commission date would be appropriate (for one thing, we refer to all USN commissioned ships as "USS" even though the prefix wasn't actually adopted until 1907) so again, the issue is not necessarily as straightforward as it might first appear, but certainly, you make a worthwhile point. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The issues you raise about the scope of changes required to move from hull numbers as a means of distinguishing ships in links and titles are certainly valid. I am not sure that good redirects cannot take care of text within articles that identify a ship by name and hull number. The templates might well become a mess. As for hull number identifying "type" that is true to an extent but two points. First most readers have no idea what ARC means or what the hell is going on when a CVE becomes CVU and then AKV. Until they get down in the article for some explanation those are mysteries. Second, since classifications are about how the Navy sees the function of a particular hull the same "type" ship can have completely different classifications, particularly among the auxiliaries where modifications for a purpose may or may not be visible (ATF vs same hull as AGS or precisely how LPD differs in "type" to the eye from the same ship as AGF (we might, but most readers would not notice certain indicators of function without pointers). Unless one goes aboard and sees some odd equipment for a tug even a practiced eye can be fooled. On the flip side, long, long ago one of my ships and all of us aboard got continual grief at a remote island base. We looked like a cargo ship to everybody, even the base officers (except one or two did notice some odd antennas) and, yes, our hull designation could be for a cargo something. We were just vast empty holds except for part of two, and no, we did need supplies even if we'd brought nothing for the base and, no, visitors were not allowed and we could not say why we were there. At one point we were refused drinks and meals at the clubs and use of the exchange because we'd not brought anything. Externally and in all ways internally, until one went deep inside behind locked watertight doors, that ship looked like a cargo ship. No "reclassification" ever took place.

Indeed, USS is fairly modern if we go back to sail, but the Navy is pretty sticky on that and whether you take my word for it or not, if DANFS does not mention a commissioning it is that snowball in hell thing, possible but highly unlikely. There was an odd period, before and during WW I, when a few of many little SP and Y vessels got commissioned. USS Powhatan is one of those oddities. Attaching USS to Asp is ridiculous and even having an article about a motorboat seems a bit much. May as well have "articles" on Army trucks; then Army did not keep such loving records of such equipment. Navy just loves what floats! Palmeira (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been observing things ---to learn the basics--- and there appears to be organized disorganization at best. I am not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation without reason yet I do see a good reason to use ship name (year). However, before we go on a crusade of "fixing" something that is not actually "broken" because one or two editors do not like something, even if there has pretty sound reasoning, so I must be satisfied there is broad consensus. My reasoning is simple. Swapping (year) for (hull number) just for the sake of it, because one does not like hull numbers on articles, that are already on "many" articles, would be pointless. Add to that the fact that the hull numbers, on ships that use them, do not actually do any harm and, considering ("all things Navy") we have DANFS that is the authority, most of the times the only source, and they do use them for identification, so someone would have to present pretty logical reasoning why swapping one parenthetical disambiguation for yet another, would be beneficial.

I am not going to go against change, just will not support a wholesale bunch of moves just to give editors yet something else to do. A better pastime would be to find references and actually edit articles. I am not implying that any involved don't edit or try to do things other than that, as I don't look at inflated edit count's or even editors use of time. I have seen too many projects (at least three so far) where editors jump on a band wagon of "changing things" just to "change things", starting a whole lot of stubs that will likely remain unimproved, some for 9 to 11 years now, so we probably could have done without them. Then I have seen possible good intentions go awry. "ALL" articles on Wikipedia do not have to be exactly the same. We can start by effecting change with edits. Stub or start articles that are being expanded (ahhh constructive editing) can be looked at to see "IF" a change is better. I would have to consider if the United States Navy|Enterprise ship articles, all eight and at a point nine, would benefit from all being replaced with USS Enterprise (year), that would match earlier ships, or if they are alright like they are. The mentioned "titles" (Mr. and Mrs) are respectful titles. Doctor (Dr.) is an earned title, and some titles are certainly honorific. With all the current lifestyles changing concerning gender-identity, it is almost an insult to try to be respectful. I found it amazing that humans were actually not born male or female but assigned a sex after being born.

Please look at it this way. A person's ignorance about a certain subject (Navy ships) just means they can go to a good encyclopedia and "learn" so being. I do not totally agree about DANFS being the only one looking at numbers. I have seen sources use the hull numbers also and it is a very clear indication that the ship found with matching hull numbers, is the same ship listed on DANSF. Once again, I am not objecting to exploring a change just that a new mass "change sub-project" offers me no reason for support. Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say, but here is an attempt to clarify some points I think you are making.

(1) There was a consensus emerging that "name (year)" was the way to go, partly because some ships had many hull numbers over a lifetime. Hull numbers change as the Navy sees the ship's function change or the mission change. Reclassification is a purely administrative thing within Navy and can result in massive hull number changes for whole types. Deciding which of several hull numbers best represents a ship for disambiguation is one of those opinion/decision things that can be a mess.

(2) You are mistaken on DANFS using hull numbers in titles. That is beginning to crop up in the new version of on-line DANFS where navigation is still a mess (and they may begin having problems picking the "right" one for search purposes), but the print version and the previous on-line versions only mention hull numbers in connection with those administrative changes. I don't even know what to make of what I found on NHHC's DANFS navigation page when I was going to use Enterprise VIII! Good grief! Aside from having to select the EN group and clicking through pages I see there are nine pages for that ship! They've decided to split one ship's history into nine DANFS entries. That is why, though the authority on a ship's history, I'm not sure their indexing is a worthy example.

(3) A mass change may not be worth the effort, but an incremental one as articles are edited may be worth doing. I am at the moment, with a detour into the United States Shipping Board that was woefully inadequate for the number of references to it and its role at the time, working the EFC Design 1029 ships, some becoming attack transports. All those ships had fairly significant commercial roles before becoming Navy ships, but in rewrites I'm actually following DANFS practice. Instead of Leonard Wood (AP-25) being "renamed" or "becoming" Leonard Wood (AP-25) as some articles might have it she just got reclassified APA-12. At some point, weeks probably, some new paint got applied.

With the exception of completely erroneous and blatantly incorrect usage of USS for ships never in commission I generally don't much care, particularly if a ship only had one classification and hull number. I'd lot rather spend my time adding new stuff, particularly for those ships that have significant commercial history ignored. By the way, one reason I'm interested in those WW I era ships is what they reveal about the U.S. maritime position, shipbuilding state and politics. When those "502s" (Design 1095) and "535s" (Design 1029) ships hit the Pacific coast in the 1920s they gave the U.S. flag a place in transpacific trade it had surrendered to the Japanese and British. The impact was interesting and also rather sad because the Great Depression wrecked things again and we had to start the next war act again desperately short of hulls. Somewhere I've a Congressional hearing transcript noting we have not been a maritime nation since the Civil War. The center of interest shifted to the interior and only the coasts retained a vague hint of maritime vigor, but they couldn't get enough support to compete against Britain and Japan in particular. In that USSB revision: "just over 10% of the value of trade carried in U.S. owned ships"! Palmeira (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Palmeira, Thank you for your reply but in the future, so as to avoid possible contention, please, if you "misunderstand" something, it is far easier to ask for clarification on any "missed points" than to make it appear that you did not hear me concerning my entire comments, yet attempt to "interpret" what you "think" I am trying to state, and clarifying it. I can understand that you might not be be clear on one or more points but that would be too easy to rectify. You stated to me "You are mistaken on DANFS using hull numbers in titles", when I stated "they do use them for identification", but I didn't state "titles". Where the Navy provides numbers DANFS does (usually as far as I can see) provide these.

Of course the US Navy uses hull numbers (HID's) to uniquely identify a particular ship. This number will change upon a ship's reclassification (most times sequential), and we have to decide how to deal with this. DANFS certainly makes mistakes and I am sure the US Navy does, and you provided reasoning above, but the information they post (mistakes notwithstanding) comes from US Navy records. "IF" there are mistakes from the top they will trickle down, but we can not condemn an an entire system on exceptions. Your argument against using hull numbers seems to imply that DANFS is now unreliable as as source? If not, and a US ship is reclassified, then a good practice would be to follow a reliable source and rename the article or at least denote this at first instance in the lead. I am sure you will find errors, but you appear to be thorough in your research (sorting out certain messes), so I have no doubt you will be able to flesh out any discrepancies.

I am glad you agree with me being against "mass moves", except changes with edits. I support a change of any article using USS when involving a ship never commissioned as does user: Gatoclass. I also support any move involving parenthetical disambiguation (hull number) to (year) where this would reduce or minimize a known error or be otherwise beneficial. If there is another reason to support a change to ship (year) over ship (hull number) please let me know as I am open to discussion as long as my translator button is not broke. Otr500 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I may be "misunderstanding" you, but you are apparently misunderstanding me. Of course DANFS mentions hull numbers in the articles as reclassifications. Always have. It did not use them in titles or in the previous on-line indices (I've still got old copies of the print version I used to help get it on-line a couple of decades ago). Only recently, after NHHC underwent a massive rework of its site that still has not "recovered" information that was once there and the cause of all the 404 errors for DANFS links here, have hull numbers shown up in either the navigation page or the titles of histories. No, DANFS is not unreliable, though it occasionally has mistakes when dealing with ships Navy took into service. It has become a mess to navigate after that change and if you knew the old system you would see that.

Before that total site change the DANFS index pages involved no "< 1 2 3 4 5 >" after a letter combination. You got a list of ship names with direct links. One could also go back and forth from a ship, if wrong, to the index so that if you were looking for NAME III and got NAME IV (that was how the old DANFS distinguished names) it was one click back and one to the other history. Now you had better right click because there is no "going back" to the listing cluttered by anchor symbols. Not an improvement at all, but I'm getting a hint of "security" as the cause for all the delinking. Now, possibly as a result of complaints (they apparently got quite a few), they are making some changes in those navigation pages—one of which seems to be the addition of hull numbers. That may get them into the same issue I see here: "Granddaddy served on Name hull# but I don't see that in the list!"—because the period granddaddy served was not the "most significant" or "longest" with that hull number.

And that is the key to "our problem" where most readers probably come here looking for some family association or reading some fairly non technical thing involving the ships and are neither ship nor Navy students. How does Wikipedia get such a reader to the ship of their interest when so many names were recycled? We need a disambiguator for the internal system, not the reader for whom hull numbers are perhaps a mystery. We may instantly recognize and know what they indicate, but I'd guess the vast majority or readers have little clue. The average reader knows a name, the year granddaddy served or the action took place and, maybe one hull number if reading a naval history. What they probably need to find the ship is a simple list of names and dates. What the system needs is a unique tag for the page and we know that one ship may have more than one or even two hull numbers so they are not a single tag for the ship. Ships only get launched once, despite maybe getting "refloated" after yard periods (some editor argued that), so it is a better system tag connect index and redirect pages to the correct page.

Exact launch dates for commercial ships, particularly old ones, take considerable digging into old government reports, industry journals and sometimes news reports. Navy and DANFS does really well on those dates for Navy built ships, with Navy further making sure no two ships bore the same name at the same time, and for most WW II and postwar commercial type hulls. If we are looking for a unique title tag for searches the launch year is singular, almost always precise (though rarely two commercial ships of the same name were launched somewhere in the world the same year). Hull numbers are subject to editorial judgement (She fought the big battle as XXX-15! Her most newsworthy, most references were as XXY-15! No, she served 12 of 20 years as XXZ-15!) and carefully done redirect pages. Of all the options launch date is as close to a single link tag for ships of the same name as we will get. If we began listing our U.S.N. ship indices with name and inclusive years, launch-disposal readers would know which ship to target off the bat. Palmeira (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD

The Vadne (ferry) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)