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.
Past vs. present tense in ship class articles with an extant member
Hey all, I've got a bit of an interesting question. Should ship class articles be in the past or present tense when class members are still in existence but out of service?
To me, past tense makes more sense because ship class articles are more about how the ships were designed than what is happening with them today. That said, I don't feel strongly either way. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. With respect to the class of ships, if none of them are in service, it's logical to refer to them in the past tense. Nobody talks about North Carolina-class battleships as a present-tense activity, as if "those ships are (currently) [better/worse] than XXX-class ships". — sbb (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that, for USN ships at least, it seems that once they're decommissioned, or taken out of service for non-commissioned ships, that seems to be the point where articles switch from present to past tenses. I realize that's a somewhat narrow example, but I'm sure others here have noticed the practice as well.
Perhaps those who edit ship articles from other navies, (or even commercial ships), can comment on any practices they've noticed with this? One of the main reasons why I suggested this discussion was it would be nice to perhaps come to a consensus on this, and maybe even craft some project guidance on the matter. Thanks for replies - wolf08:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
With regard to a particular former naval vessel does it not depend entirely on the state of existence and standard language rules at the time of writing? If breaking censorship and writing about ex-USS Dale in late 1942 I would write "Masaya is . . ." but in mid 1943 it would be "Masaya, the former USS Dale, was . . ." as the destroyer/bananna boat/Army transport bearing those names had been bombed and sunk. To some extent the previous discussion of the Navy's rather strict use of "ex-USS Example" or "former Example" that I think most agreed should apply here only when it makes sense to emphasize and define a ship's commissioned state applies. Use generally accepted language rules except when needed for a particular, precise need. If adding a current bit about the state of the Masaya wreck I'd use present tense about the wreck itself in the now. In the case of transfer to another navy text about USNS Kane about Kane — past tense — or Çandarli , if Turkey still operates the ship, present tense if someone is adding that "career" to the piece.
That said, for modern naval vessels, the cases of even non combatant hulls going civilian appears to be reversed from those days of massive wartime construction. Some auxiliaries do go civilian, but the reverse is more common and again, tense would appear to depend on whether that hull or name still exists or not. Palmeira (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think present tense makes more sense. The ships still exist, thus the class still exists. The ships could theoretically be retrofitted and recommission in the navy, it has happened before. And using the North Carolina class as an example, the North Carolina, the lead ship of the class, still exists as a museum ship, is still used, and the Wikipedia Article USS North Carolina (BB-55) still uses the present tense. The ship still exists, I could fly to North Carolina and take a tour of it. So it's an odd idea to change it to past tense. Tickery (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think there is confusion of a naval administrative thing and physical things, ships. As with hull numbers, much made of here, that are pretty much a bookkeeping matter for the U.S.N. (as seen with some mass changes from one general designation to another). Ship "classes" are "buckets" in which to put ships with the same lineage so to speak. Ships of a class are usually built or sometimes modified to a single plan, with similar characteristics, equipment, maintenance and even crew requirements. One can see that with supply and equipment lists. A certain new electronic device goes to all ships in the A, D, F classes because they perform the duties needing it and have the capability of having it installed. That usage is much like the Table of organization and equipment for land military units. When the last of such a class goes inactive, no longer requiring naval tracking and maintenance, the class is a thing of the past regardless of continued examples of hulls once so classed. An existing museum ship, spoken of as present tense itself, may be a representative of a class that is of the past. The ship "is" the class "was." Palmeira (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if you have any special circumstances to deal with here, but GRT seems a particularly poor measure to decide notability. What would this do for the Mayflower? (Not the best example for my argument - but I think you see what I mean).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Mayflower is hardly similar to what I'm talking about. I'm more looking at an otherwise vanilla merchant steamer of the first half of the 20thC (1911–1930) which foundered with all hands. There will be newspaper reports of course, as well as merchant ship records, and basic details available on Miramar, but if there is a rule-of-thumb for vessels under a certain tonnage, it seems pointless putting an article together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, I'd say the "foundered with all hands" alone is enough for notability. Heck, even a small vessel lost with all hands is probably going to be notable. Those sorts of disasters usually warrant significant media coverage. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Somewhere I recall seeing 100 tons by any measure as likely to be inherently notable but currently all I can find is in the project scope which says the following are not Civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length or tonnage of less than 100.Lyndaship (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Vessels over 100' length or 100 tons (unspecified measure) fall under the scope of WP:Ships. To be notable, they still have to mee WP:GNG. This is usually achived by WP:V by WP:RS. Vessels under 100' / 100 tons fall outside the scope of this project, but may still be notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - go for it! If the vessel was in existence in 1930, she'll be listed on Lloyd's register for 1930 (link on my user page). Plenty of detail to be cribbed from there. You might think the ship had a mundane existence, but it sometimes turns out to have been much more exciting. The cargo ship Missourian certainly had a varied life.Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If it's Tyne-built it will probably be covered in Vol 33 or Vol 34 of The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect (which cover 1911) - this may give useful construction or design features.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Strangely, not on that list Mjroots, although according to the online wrecks database wrecksite.au it was built by John Redhead and Sons in South Shields, so certainly Tyne-built if that is correct. The vessel's name is SS Daksa, and it was in Vol 33, thanks Nigel Ish. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Page 5 of the appropriate Lloyd's Casualty Report [1] - under the missing heading - sent a distress signal on 26 January 1930 having left La Goulette in Tunisia for Rotterdam with a cargo of Iron Ore on 19 Jan.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I have red-linked it in the article it came up in (Jadran (training ship), the first sailing ship article I've really worked on), and am planning to have a go at it when I have brought that one up to speed. I'm familiar with warships, but not sailing or merchant steamships, so it will be a good learning experience... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Repulse and her consortPrince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941 when they attempted to intercept landings in British Malaya."
User Sturmvogel_66 keeps insisting using 'consort' in the lead. Consort may be a nautical term for main escort, yet this does not appear in many other ship article leads or history. Why must it appear in HMS Repulse (1916) ?
@BlueD954:, what are you referring to? I just fixed some spacing on the HMS Repulse article, and the word "consort" wasn't there. - wolf05:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@BlueD954:, Well, I look at the diff you've listed, and it shows "consort" being added (by someone else), but then in the very next diff you remove it!. So like I said, when I first posted here; I had edited the page and the word wasn't there, and now we know why. What is "so obvious" is that you playing some kind of disruptive game here and wasting people's time. Strange for someone who claims they are "retired" and "no longer edit". - wolf08:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone else? Relevant to the topic?
Why do you think such a narrow minded approach to writing articles is preferred? That no other article you’ve seen uses the word is not a good reason to proscribe its use. Perhaps let someone whose written close to 100 featured articles determine whether a given word is a good choice or not. Parsecboy (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Widely used term for two ships together especially when of similar power, neither of which could be deemed to escorting the other. Just google it Lyndaship09:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not clear what point BlueD954 is trying to make here. He removed the word from this article, but had just gone on a edit-spree, adding the word to at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other articles. Is this all just soapboxing to make some kind of a point?? Further, he states he's retired, refuses to respond to any posts, but is busy editing a bunch of tv articles. Isn't some effective talk page engagement required here? - wolf10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Probably worth pointing out this thread (and the two related sections immediately below it. It seems pretty POINTy to me, and if it continues, will probably result in a block. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's an odd error with {{2021 shipwrecks}}. It displays fine when viewing the template, but when viewing it as part of an article there's a stray "1=" after X-Press Pearl. I can't see any reason why this should happen. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Launch categories by decade
A question has arisen over the scope of these categories (i.e., Category:1860s ships). I've understood these to be organizational categories that exist either for decades that don't have enough ships launched to warrant individual years (as in the case of Category:1630s ships) or in the case of ships we don't have a specific launch date. Recently, an IP editor has started adding these categories to ship classes, and I've been reverting them on the basis that the categories are for ships, not classes. Sturmvogel 66 questioned this on my talk page and pointed out that many of the decade categories already have classes in them and suggested we discuss this more broadly here. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
By and large, I agree with restricting such decade-based categories to the ships themselves, and not categories. However, in cases where the ship doesn't have its own article and is only listed on the ships' class page, it makes sense that the category should also be applied to the class page. Basically, apply the category to the article containing the "main" content for a particular ship. Dead giveaway: if the "proper" ship name article is a redirect to a class page, categorize the class page. — sbb (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The counterpoint to what I suggested is that just viewing the category page will show a mish-mash of ship articles and ship-class articles. That could lead editors to believe that class articles should be there, which is unintended. On the other hand, if the category is kept "pure" by only tagging ship articles (or their canonical-form redirect to the ship class), the category will simply be a list of ships launched in that decade. Which is presumably the intent of the category after all. I think I talked myself out of my previous viewpoint. — sbb (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There are "redirect categories" (rcats) that you mention (I'm slowly going around and editing ship redirects with the appropriate rcats such as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}). But redirects can also have normal article categories. Redirects in article cats show up as italics. — sbb (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
oops, I misunderstood what you referring to. Yeah, you're right. We're on the same page there. — sbb (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Having been involved in the creation of these cats many years ago, the intention was to avoid having ship year launch categories with only a very few ships in them. Thus they were grouped by decade before - I think - the 1740s, with categorisation by year thereafter. If, in the interim more ship articles have been written that justify further splitting of decade categories into years, then there is no reason why that cannot be done. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my understanding of how they were created as well. I don't know that they were ever intended to be used on class articles. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
USS Majaba torpedoing date is unlikely.
The date given in DANFS appears to be highly unlikely based on the transcribed log of USS Denver and histories of the two escorts, Lansdowne and Woodworth. See Talk:USS Majaba (AG-43) for details of why 7 November does not add up giving the activities of those ships on that date. Majaba was obscure except for the torpedoing. I am attempting to pin down a date using other ships in the vicinity, Most simply do not mention Majaba. That includes the tug USS Bobolink that was involved in the salvage which is not mentioned in that vessel's DANFS history. The 7 November date is used in an account of SeaBees but may be derivative from the DANFS material. Does anyone have or have access to sources that could pin the date that would not be derived from the questionable DANFS? Or, other eyes may see the reasons I question that date as being not valid. Particularly my not seeing the movements in the Denver log as being of a mobile vessel, not a hulk with engine and boilers destroyed and no mention of towing vessels in the log. Palmeira (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved and fixed. I lost track of "Novembers" so to speak. Finding the Nimitz "Gray Book" message and entry dates confirmed the 7 November 1942 date (as well as adding a bit of detail) got me on the right track realizing I'd mixed the Denver log November 1943 events. Palmeira (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Linking to list of ship launches in see also sections
Further to that discussion, I'm bringing this back here for discussion at WP level. Daniel Case made a very good point that I hadn't considered. As a veteran Wikipedian, I'm quite comfortable navigating around the project by various methods apart from wikilinks - categories, navboxes and shortcuts for example. I sometimes forget about a very important part of Wikipedia, the reader, and in particular the reader who is a non-editor.
Daniel said "I mean, why have these list articles at all if you're not going to link to them from the articles listed" and he is right. Ship launch lists (and by extension ship commissioning, decommissioning and shipwreck lists) are all easily findable by navigation from the {{shipevents}} navbox. Ships that were wrecked and have articles are also easily findable via the relevant shipwreck navbox. However, outside these, it seems that there are very few links to these lists from articles.
So, how do we handle this? At the GSI Mariner article, the list of ship launches is linked from a "See also" section. I'm not in favour of that although MOS:SEEALSO seems to allow that. I think that this can be better handled via a link to the relevant list from the relevant parameter in the infobox, so in the case of GSI Mariner, the infobox would say "Launched 1971". To show how this would look if implemented, I've edited the infobox of the RMS Magdalena (1948) article to link to the relevant list of ship launches and shipwrecks. Where a vessel is involved in a number of maritime incidents, these could be linked to the relevant shipwreck lists from the dates in the text.
Don't think that is a good idea. I don't see the relevance of linking to a list of ships launched in the same year at all but this suggestion seems very WP:EASTEREGG to me Lyndaship (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah poor choice of word from me, for relevance read value - why provide a link by any means to a list of other ships which just happened to be launched in the same year as the subject of the article? Lyndaship (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
To which one might ask "why not?". I've just noticed that on the mobile view of the RMS Magdalena article, the {{1949 shipwrecks}} navbox isn't shown, nor are the categories. This means that readers using mobile are not getting links to other lists and articles. If a reader looking at that article wants to know what other ships were wrecked in 1949, they wouldn't have been able to find that infomation easily. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Lyndaship - adds nothing for the reader to know some container ship was launched the same year as a tugboat. I'm not even sure the purpose of those lists since that information just duplicates the categories at the bottom of the page. Shipwrecks I understand because that needs context as to the nature of the event - all of them were lost in a storm, a battle, etc. A list of ship launches though? Cannot see the purpose of it. I also agree that linking it to a date in the infobox would be an easter egg and that should be avoided. Maybe it can be worked into the prose, in the construction phase, but even there I still think that information is better dealt with by a category. Llammakey (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Llammakey: - would that be a category, which as I have demonstrated, mobile users cannot see. Looking at the list of ship launches in 1971, there is currently only one ship article that links to the list, the GSI Mariner article. There are 43 ships on that list that have articles, so we are missing 42 other opportunities to get readers to that list. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You haven't made the argument as to why lists of ship launchings, commissionings, etc. need to be linked in individual ship articles. Why not class articles then? Multiples years of commissionings and launchings. Do you have a wall of blue text then? This could easily just be linked to in the yearly articles, like things that happened in year 19**. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of a subject other than yearly lists where one would see how many ships were commissioned or launched that year. It would be akin to adding List of video game characters to every single video game article. It's unnecessary. Llammakey (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I quote from the MOS:UL - "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." - Your link to a list of ships launched in a certain year is not covered in that. The list is not relevant to a tugboat's career. Whether a ship was launched in China or the US or if it was a supercarrier or a yacht has no bearing on the tugboat. They are not relevant to the subject of the article. List of ship launches and commissionings, etc. should be linked to articles of yearly events such as 1980 under the 1980 by topic section. They do not need to be in every ship article under the sun, just as 1980 in spaceflight is not linked in the Zenit (satellite) article, which was launched into space that year or 1980 in country music in the Back to Back (Jeanne Pruett song), a hit single that year. If categories are a WP:MOBILE issue, it's a category problem, not a WP:SHIPS problem. Llammakey (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Llammakey: I get it, you are opposed to this. I respect that. I don't think anything productive can come of further discussion between us on this topic. How about we let others put their views forward? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Options
As this appears to be a MOS:UL and a WP:MOBILE issue, there are various options open to us. I have listed three options below. It is entirely possible that there is something I've missed, so I'll not object to further proposals being put forward. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Option A - maintain the status quo, only link to lists of ship launches, commissionings, decomissionings via categories and to lists of shipwrecks by categories and navboxes.
Support categories and, yes, anyone not seeing them is a category problem. Oppose navbox inclusion for "Easter egg" reason stated below. Palmeira (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a (larger-scale version of a) presentation issue: in those cases, people incorrectly "solve" the problem with workaround templates or wiki markup. Similarly, this is a problem that should be solved in the mobile browser and/or mobile skin, to show categories. Thus, "easter egg" links are a poor workaround to a presentation issue. — sbb (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Initially I would have supported this but on reflection none of these occurrences have any relationship with the subject of the article. However, if it's decided that we should link in some way I prefer this way.Lyndaship (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Option B - Links to relevant lists to be made in the text, but not in infoboxes. This would not affect also linking via categories or navboxes. For example, an article could say "Foo was wrecked on the Dutch coast on 1 January 1919".
"Easter egg" — exactly. May as well go the next step and link to lists of world events — if such exists ‚ in that year. Perhaps the reader will go down that path and learn things. Palmeira (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Links to relevant lists to be made via the relevant field in ship infoboxes, as per the RMS Magdalena (1948) article which I have edited to act as an example of this method. This would not affect also linking via categories of navboxes.
unnecessary information for an article and would be removed at FAC. No purpose to these links in the infobox as it adds nothing to the understanding of the article's subject. Llammakey (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Put launch by year list in "See also" to avoid the "Easter egg" issue. If a reader has any interest in seeing all the varied ships launched in a year they can do so.
Support
If, and I think this is an unnecessary solution in search of a problem, a link is made other than by category make it clear what the reader is going to get. In the Magdalena example the reader opens an "Easter egg". In a See also the reader sees "List of ship launches in 1948. Even with my interest in ships I don't think I've ever wanted to know all the ships from yachts to tankers and warships in all the world's yards launched in a given year based on an interest in a particular ship. Palmeira (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
agreed with Palmeira, guarded support, based on link being in the correct location, and not being an easter egg. — sbb (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the need to link to such a general list but if it is felt beneficial I think Option A is better Lyndaship (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Leaning oppose as a list of ship launches seems to me to be too tangential for the "See also" section of an individual ship article. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I've just done a bit of major surgery to Wale. The Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea (previous reference) does seem to have some horrible nonsense in it. What the article needs now is some good example of how the wale was used as a major structural component in shipbuilding. I am thinking of various mediaeval ships, right through to Napoleonic War vessels (and also USS Constitution). (Incidentally, neither HMS Victory nor USS Constitution say much about the hull structure.) Does anyone have sources that would enable them to add a bit to Wale? Even a good cross-sectional diagram would help.
Those submarines were not completed. UB155 seems to be the highest numered UB-III class submarine to be completed, although UB-133 and UB-136 were completed later.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Which means UB-156 , 157 etc .... are building but never complete , just like 134 , 135 etc .... ? Or German navy never use UB-156 , 157 etc .... numbers when they are building submarine that never complete ? Are there any register of Type UB III submarine ? --Comrade John (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Higher numbers than UB-155 were either never finished or had their contracts cancelled before start of construction (in both cases the war had ended). Programmed vessels went up to UB-249. There is a list of UB-IIIs in the appropriate volume of Groner.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. One last and off topic question , What is the highest number of programmed vessels of U-XXX and UC-XXX u-boats in WWI ?-- Comrade John (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Query about NFUR for ship images where the ship has been scrapped
G'day, has anyone had any joy getting an infobox image of a ship using a non-free-use rationale through GAN or FAC image reviews? I have an article at GA which I'd like to nominate for higher assessment, but while I've used NFURs for infobox images for biographies, I've never done it for a ship, and I cannot find a freely licensed image of the ship in question (the pretty obscure Yugoslav admiralty yacht and gunboat Beli Orao). An example of an NFUR that has been successfully used would be very helpful. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about a vessel called Ranger that apparently did salvage work in 1917? This involved lifting a 206 GRT barquentine that had sunk in the entrance to Newlyn and moving her to an inside berth. The salvaged vessel still had some or all of her cargo of coal on board (as the cargo was bought along with the wreck). My source refers to "the famous Ranger". The salvaged vessel was Waterwitch (1871) which should have an article shortly. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This is probably it.[2] Built 1880 by J. Elder & Co. of Glasgow, by 1893 in service of the Liverpool Association. There are quite a few hits for it on newspaperarchive.com, though the earliest I have found so far dates to 1893. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like she might have been originally built as a gunboat,[3] which might explain why there are no hits for a salvage vessel named Ranger earlier than 1893. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Our disambiguation page says she "was an Algerine-class composite screw gunboat launched in 1880. She was sold as a salvage vessel in 1892, and hired between 1914 and 1919 as an ammunition hulk. She was broken up in 1947" - but curously, there is no mention of Ranger in the class article itself. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - the Lloyd's Register entry (particularly the owner) looks convincing as to the role, etc. I note that Algerine-class gunvessel has a citation, but I guess that this just applies to her naval career. (Not having access to the source, I cannot confirm.) I suppose there is some small chance of there being some detailed source that mentions her merchant career in salvage work or on charter as an ammunition hulk - when presumably all the salvage gear was still on board and put to appropriate use in 1917. What got me wondering was Basil Greenhill describing her as the famousRanger - is he referring to her naval career or her salvage career? A quick look at newspaper articles suggest that Ranger was the salvage vessel used (in conjunction with the lifting ship SS Zelo) to recover HMS Thetis (N25) - and a substantial career including recovery of £100,000 pounds worth of rubber from a Booth liner called Cyril (1906), the innovative salvage of SS Suevic, etc., etc. I suspect "famous" refers to the salvage work. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Ships of the Royal Navy, Colledge, J. J. and Warlow, Ben (2010) has a brief notation of "Hired 11.14-1919 as ammunition hulk." The date format is a little strange as most other dates are recorded as dd.mm.yyyy. It could represent November 1914 to 1919. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Grace's guide clarifies that the fame relates to the salvage work.[4] It lifted a number of high profile wrecks under the command of Frederic William Young. He seems to have been associated with the vessel for quite a time, so using his name as an alternative search term may bring up some useful results. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would have to refer to the salvage work. Not a lot for gunvessels to be famous for in the 1880s. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you suppose any of the pictures of Ranger as a salvage ship that appear on clydeships (or anywhere else) are available to use on Wikipedia?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Salvage Steamer Ranger, owned by the Liverpool Salvage Association
Found this picture on the Liverpool maritime museum site. It appears to have the incorrect date of build (presumably someone read across the lines wrongly in Lloyd's Register). Seems to have the same layout as other pictures of the ship in a salvage role - she seems to have had an upper deck removed, but all the portholes remain in the same place as far as I can tell, and the photos scale correctly if you use the height of a person as a measure. Not 100% sure it is free to use as it is undated, and probably of the ship in later trim. Picture quality is not good. Any thoughts? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I've found a selection of images of Ranger salvaging HMS Gladiator in 1908. The scanned images aren't of a very good quality but they are available on internet archive in Engineering volume 86.[5] Hopefully there is a better scan available somewhere, or a physical copy that someone can access. However, the ship in the background of this related image may be RangerSalvage of HMS Gladiator. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The images in the 1908 Engineering article linked above are credited to "Mr. Stephen Cribb, of Southsea." It is likely to be Joseph Steven Cribb (1875-1963) who was a naval and press photographer operating in the area at the time. Unfortunately the images are still in copyright in the UK until January 2034, so are inelligible for Commons. They could be uploaded to English Wikipedia on the basis that publication before 1926 makes them public domain in the US. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
MV Missourian (1921)
Well, some ships certainly have varied careers, don't they? I present MV Missourian (1921), which started off as a cargo ship and was rebuilt post-WWII as a passenger ship. There are a few gaps which need filling - service at Capitaine Potié, Code Letters under Italian and Saudi service, and her IMO number. Lyndaship, can you check Miramar for the latter please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry not much help. Miramar doesn't record code letters and doesn't give IMO numbers as such but its reference there is 5116050 which I think is likely to be the IMO Lyndaship (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Pacific Marine Review is a valuable resource for U.S. ships. While it focuses on Pacific and Pacific coast shipping it includes news of the world and had data on almost all U.S. yards. I have the digital .pdf files on an auxiliary drive and sometimes just enjoy reading. I also have the bookmarks for issues 1912 — 1950. That section on yard reports, with hulls, dates and often characteristics is really useful. I think it is 1943 when the vast wartime "no info" secrecy gap cuts in. Then all that is given is the yard executives — no ships.There is a great deal about shipbuilding policy and legislation as well. It is excellent in understanding what was going on 1920-1939 in U.S. shipping when companies were forming, folding, exchanging USSB owned ships and begging for real subsidies. They were trying to compete particularly with Japanese lines. Those highly subsidized lines were eating the market even for Pacific coastwise trade as there was no Jones Act. Those famous Japanese lines were calling from Los Angeles up to Seattle picking up cargo and passengers. There was a period in which the only way to get from the U.S. to the Philippines was on Japanese or British ships. A Congressional delegation even had to take a Japanese liner via Japan to get to Manila because the Army Transports (Army and Navy transports were the only U.S. flag ships on that route) were not available. It takes reading some of that to understand the now bashed Jones Act. Palmeira (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The closest I know is just a search. Internet Archive has most and is searchable. I built a bookmarks list and downloaded issues over the last decade or so. By the way, the name is Pacific Marine Review. Palmeira (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Those journals are in the public domain, aren't they? Is it possible to extract the photograph from the sea trials article? Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the photo in the .pdf version I have and see if some of my image processing software can improve it. It is PD as Parsecboy says. Palmeira (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Full screen .pdf gave fair image. Bit of clean up, uploaded, in article infobox. Added bit in text to match caption. Trials were one day, 6 July, after which final work was done before delivery and departure for New York 10 July 1922. Palmeira (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but this ship did not have an IMO number - they were introduced in 1987. The number quoted was its Lloyd's Register unique number in its 7-digit form from 1969 (from 1963, when they started unique numbers, it was 511605). When the LR numbering system was adopted by the IMO in 1987, for those ships in existence at that time their LR numbers became their IMO numbers. By then, King Abdelaziz had long gone to razor-blades. Some websites do label the pre-1987 LR numbers as IMO numbers, but it cannot be correct. No objection to including it as a "Lloyd's Register unique number", though. Davidships (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, last sentence truncated - should be "No objection to including it as a "Lloyd's Register unique number", though that had no official status". Davidships (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just achieved GA status, so if anyone wants an easy GA nom, it's there for the taking. There are plenty of potential hooks to choose from given her varied career. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This ship illustrates the fact that ship's stories often tell much larger stories than just what we ship lovers often see in the vessels themselves. The stories can be of tragedy and flight, as are so many of the ships associated with the refuge in Australia after the Japanese breach of the Malay Barrier. 's Jacob was just one and some of those stories were truly tragic as ships fleeing Singapore were caught. This one tells the story of trade, and if one follows the thread of the change from triangular trans Atlantic to Pacific to inter coastal runs one finds the turmoil in world shipping between the wars. Then there is the story of the post World War II emigration from Europe to new lands. More than one I've worked on, grand old liners in some cases, were part of the large exodus to such places as Australia. Sometimes we focus on the ship and its character but neglect to mention or link to those much larger stories. Palmeira (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Jane's Fighting Ships 2009 has Sagara, the other ship of the class transferred to Sri Lanka operating with the pennant number P622, so it doesn't seem too unlikely that the pennant number got reused. This is one good reason why pennant numbers may not always be the best choice for article disamiguators.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I was reading about the IRINS Makran since it was in the news recently. The article lede calls it a "sea base", but the wikilink for that term (and "Expeditionary Sea Base" in the infobox) link to Expeditionary Transfer Dock, and I'm reasonably sure this Iranian ship doesn't "provid[e] the US Navy with the capability to perform large-scale logistics movements". Is there an existing article on the general ship type, not exclusive to the US Navy, that I may have overlooked? If not, there would seem to be a need for one. I defer to you on how best to present the information in IRINS Makran and similar articles. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
There are also other ships, like mid-Atlantic flying boat tenders, seaplane tenders, submarine tenders, PT boat tenders, that serve as mid-ocean bases for subs, seaplanes, patrol boats, ... -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Draft:ONE Apus
Can anyone from the project have a look at Draft:ONE Apus and provide their feedback on the draft? Looking to know if you feel this would satisfy notability guidelines based on your experience with AfD discussions involving the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Since it's a modern vessel, it's fairly easy to fill out the infobox and write a general description of the vessel. Other than that, there are some minor stylistics issue such as not italicizing the ship name, starting the lead with a definite article (and generally using it with the ship name) etc. Tupsumato (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The Posidonia/Posedonia entries should be combined, with the eventual article being the List of ships named Posidonia (or Posedonia). Entries should all be redlinked at the Posidonia/Posedonia names and dabbed by year of launch. Take a look at List of ships named Albatross for an example of such a list.
The Moorcock proto-article is not ready for mainspace. It needs an infobox and structure to start with - lede, description, history, court case, references might be a good structure. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
It now has a lede, history, court case and references sections, with the infobox. Being ready for mainspace, should mean it is an acceptable level of being a stub article that won't be in such a state that it would be merged into the court case article, not a C-class article. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The ship was Moorcock, the case was The Moorcock. At present a few misunderstandings of sources in the ship article, but they can be sorted later. Davidships (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the WP:UCN common name of the ship "The Moorcock" due to the courtcase calling it "The Moorcock", and thus being the most likely name to be found? Lloyds called it "S. S. Moorcock", hence the into sentence calling it SS Moorcock. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems it is actually the WP:SHIPS banner doing it. I changed the assessment to C, still with the B checklist filled out so it displays as Start still, but now the article main page shows it as a C-class article under the title. Seems this isn't working quite right? Martocticvs (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Amended to wikilink. I'm going through to reassess because most don't seem to have the correct rating. Woody (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting focus of viewing. I had to chuckle at Poop deck being so high. Yeah, combined misdirected scatological interest or ignorance. I had to look at the history to see if there is a huge revert of nonsense there. Instead a revelation again of how weak some of the nautical terminology links are. Poop deck actually is not terrible in that respect, though the image really does not define the poop deck well. An image of a much simpler ship might serve better to show it is the deck covering the deck house/cabin at the stern. The redirect of Fantail (ship) (Nope!) there is not good and that is an example of redirects of the sort I've hit over the years that raise eyebrows. Palmeira (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
For the most part, there is little that is obviously different between the live and sandbox versions of the templates. Examples and explanations of the differences are at Template:Infobox ship begin/testcases.
Hi, I thought about putting this in the article talk page but wasn't sure anyone would ever see it. I don't think the name of this ship article is correct in any regard. According to Winfield and Colledge the ship was purchased by the Royal Navy in 1781 and commissioned by January 1782, surely making the date incorrect? Furthermore the ship was named Berwick before its acquisition by the RN and for the first half of its service; should the article not come under the original name of the ship even if it was more famous under its later name? I'd appreciate any comments, I could be completely wrong for all I know! Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
That is correct in principle. But conspicuous by its absence from both article and infobox is the date that she was actually commissioned as Sirius. At first blush I assumed that it would be the 12 October 1786 of renaming. However, since she was still being refitted in December and did not commence her voyage for another five months, I wonder. Whenever it was, it ought to be stated as clearly as possible.Davidships (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I have contacted the publisher E. S. Mittler & Sohn regarding the copyrights of the maps in the „Krieg zur See 1914-1918” series, exactly those which were drawn by a cartograph named Herzog, about him are no data available. In his answer – in April of this year – the business manager of the publisher explained, that the archive of the publisher was completely destroyed at the end of World War II and they have no information about the cartograph either. Even no date of death is known. However, about the uploading of the maps and diagrams of the books into WikimediaCommons he also explained, that „there is no objection on behalf of the publisher” (verlagsseitig keine Einwendungen), but they do not know whether there is a third party involved with copyright claims, and if so, they do not have any impact on those.
Much of the Krieg zur See-series is to be read online. They are listed and linked on the German Wikipedia-article Marinearchiv under "Marinearchiv als Quelle"/"Amtliche Druckwerke". My intention – at first – is to upload the cards about the Battle off Heligoland, they are to be find in the first voulme of „Krieg in der Nordsee”:
Can someone help me to have these cards get uploaded on Commons? I can’t judge whether it is possible right now or not.--Andreas (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I think you'll have to ask an expert at Commons. Do they have some kind of copyright notice board? If the book was published in 1920 it's almost certainly public domain. But you need to know whether the people who scanned it can or do assert any kind of copyright. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
As a note, simply reproducing something confers no copyright. Only if there is "added intellectual property" can such a claim be made. For example of that, U.S. government nautical charts are public domain, yet commercial publishers "pirate" those (data collected at considerable expense to taxpayers) and "add intellectual property" with lists of marinas, fuel suppliers and other notes to sell them to the public. (I say "pirate" because the taxpayers and agencies get nothing due to the U.S. assumption the taxpayers have already paid, yet the charting agencies often have to fight for budget. If the commercial firm simply reproduced the chart and printed it they could sell it, but gain no copyright preventing reproduction and sale of their copied product. A "Crown Copyright" baring commercial use without additional fee paid might be desirable!). Anyway, simple reproduction of PD material, including facts from public records as so many "genealogy page" creators claim, is bogus. One gains no rights by simple reproduction or collection and restating of PD material. Palmeira (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
That's true in the US. I don't know about Germany. Courts do crazy things sometimes. In this case I'd be tempted to upload the material, with an assertion of PD, and see if anyone objects. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I was asked by@Kablammo: to offer an opinion. My suggestion would be to upload related images to en.wiki only with a {{Do not move to Commons}} tag, as en.wiki requires solely that works be free in the United States. The 1920 book cite above appears to establish that (works first published outside of the United States by foreign nationals prior to 1926 are public domain). The Commons, however, requires images to be verifiably free in both the country of origin and the United States, if different. The case in Germany, as far the Commons is concerned, is not supported. For pma countries (those whose copyright durations are determined by date of author death), such as Germany, the Commons requires 120 years from the date of creation for unknown authors ("they have no information about the cartograph either"). Accordingly, a ca. 1914 image of unknown authorship in a pma origin country would not be acceptable on the Commons until ca. 2034 (1914+120), at which time it would use the PD-old-assumed template. Эlcobbolatalk15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The most of these books are available on Archive.org, but this one was made available by the National Library of Estonia. Under the maps and diagrams this two sentences are to be read: „Verlag von E. S. Mittler & Sohn, Berlin” and „Alle Rechte vorbehalten”. (All rights reserved.)
I guessed that means the publisher owns all the rights and this excludes all third parties, but the publisher did not (unconditionally) support this view. I do not know whether the rights of the National Library of Estonia, or the possibly 70 to 120 years limits are to be handled as rights of a third party. --Andreas (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Estonia is merely the location of the library that digitalised the book. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., slavish copying such as digitalisation does not confer a new copyright in the United States. It may be the case that Estonia would consider the digitalised version to have a copyright as a derivative work, but that is not relevant for our purposes per my comments above. For images uploaded to en.wiki, only the United States status is relevant. Эlcobbolatalk03:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me, but I do not understand why the former resolution with only 2,68 MB had to be transformed to 88 KB. With this current resolution the words of the explanations on the map can't be read.--Andreas (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It was done by a bot that apparently didn't notice the non-free tag had been removed (or perhaps was picking up on the NF rationale) - fair use images have to be very low resolution to meet the requirements. I've reverted it and replaced the rationale box, which I'd assume will keep it from happening again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently @Heliastes21: created SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, assumedly split off from SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha, and then WP:PRODed the later article claiming it was no longer needed due to the two new articles. I removed the prod because either it should have been kept as one article, or the splitting was correct and we need attribution per WP:PROSPLIT and the later article should redirect to one of the newer articles instead of being deleted. Since I do not have much experience with this WikiProject or the scope of its articles, I would appreciate any second opinions on the matter. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There was no need to split that article into two separate pages. The single 11kb page was both sufficient and common for single ships with multiple names. The two new pages have been redirected back to the original article. - wolf01:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I don't think this is a single ship with multiple names. According to the article, one ship was launched in 1879 and the other was launched in 1903. I'm not sure why they were sharing an article to begin with. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Why only mention this now? You They didn't leave a single summary in the series of edits you they made leading to the prod, nor mention it on any of the three involved article talk pages. Have you they checked the sources to confirm they are separate ships, and not just dates for the launch and relaunch of the same one? Also, it would probably be better to have this discussion at Talk:SY Hildegarde and SY Hiawatha. (jmho) - wolf01:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: I am mentioning this now as the first time I read the article was earlier today. As the opening comment here says, a different editor made the edits you are talking about. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Just the same, I still believe this should've been discussed, (or at least mentioned) on the article talk page beforehand. If anyone believes they are separate ships, then post something, anything there. I believe that would've made things a lot simpler. (jmho) - wolf17:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It is obvious from even a cursory view of the content that these are two different ships. The only thing that they have in common, apart from being sizeable steam yachts, is that they they were sequentially chartered for a research programme. Shoehorning the individual ship histories into a single article makes little sense to me. I can see that the research programme itself may be notable as a coherent stand-alone article, especially if it can be expanded, but with a more appropriate title. Davidships (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Plimsoll Ship Data
Apparenty the Plimsoll Ship Data website was moved, meaning that many links are now broken and need to be corrected like this. The number after pdfs/ will be anything from 30 to 45, and the same as the two digit number prefixing a or b after the next / . Is this a task a bot can handle? Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The work that went into the old Plimsoll site, one easily searchable by name, date, tonnage and combinations and very useful as a result, was essentially demolished by the new management. The result is a bit akin to taking a dictionary or encyclopedia organized and tabbed and blowing it into a random collection of pages in boxes. (The background news is of the condo collapse in Miami. I watched the promise of digital, "web" information bloom and think I'm seeing its collapse like that building as new management neglects maintenance or performs "idiocy" with data.) I quit using it entirely as a result. You helped with a ship and I now have the technique, but it is a ridiculous downgrade in usage ease and I seldom bother. The Plimsoll story is repeated elsewhere with vast amounts of work in scanning and indexing blown up in a management change into simply "a mess" that destroys real usefulness. If a bot can be designed to relocate old Plimsoll links perhaps an overlay search gateway can also be designed. Palmeira (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it is much worse than not "user friendly" as functionality was lost. The old search included exact date or date range, exact registered tonnage or a range. Thus for ships having commonly used names one could fairly precisely target a particular ship. One could also do the date/tonnage ranges and a name and get the several matching ships to select the one of interest. As far as I can tell there is nothing at all like that functionality in the new site's search capability. Palmeira (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
where the filenames are different. Did you mean to do that? (new urls: 43b0304.pdf vs. 43b1232.pdf)
If the filename remains the same and if the first two digits of the file name are always reflected in the path just ahead of the file name, then it is relatively simple to construct a bot that can make those replacements. According to this search, there are 1670 uses of the url (all namespaces); this search says that there are 740 articles with the url.
I have hacked a simple awb script to make the necessary replacements. Since there are fewer than 1000 articles it isn't worth the hassle of WP:BRFA so I'll just pick at the list until done. For the nonce, any article that has |archive-url=<old-style-url> will be skipped because, presumably, the archived snapshot is correct. Report any problems with the conversion here.
I think that I have replaced all of the old Plimsoll urls in article space except those that have matching |archive-url= parameters and these three which, for whatever reason, I was not able to make sense of:
A related question (but which might affect the script). As what we see is a scan of a page of a book, just as we see it in the book itself, should not the 'publisher' be Lloyd's Register of Shipping? Or is that usurped by the portal which we happen to use to read it? If it is the latter, it should probably now read Southampton City Council as "plimsollshipdata.org" seems to be no longer functioning. Davidships (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There is the parameter "via" which I use for Google Books, Google Newspaper Archive, Yahoo! News, etc. that uses already published works. So the publisher could be |publisher=Lloyd's Register of Shipping and |via=Southampton City Council or something along those lines. Llammakey (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This practically begs for a wrapper template around {{cite book}}. There are probably as many forms of templated and non-templated Lloyd's references as there are editors who place them. So my recommendation is to create a {{cite plimsoll}} template that requires only the filename to produce an acceptably formatted citation. A follow-on benefit to this is that next time, and there will likely be a next time, it is necessary to change the Plimsoll url, it gets done in one place and not in hundreds of places.
is based on {{cite encyclopedia}} and supports all of the parameters that that template supports
requires one parameter |filename= which is the last bit after the last / in the url
calculates the value for |date= from |filename=
supports unique parameters (all of these are optional):
|ship-name= – the name of the ship as listed in LR
|lr-number= – the Numero d'Ordre or 'No. in Book' number from the leftmost column
|guide= – guidewords from the upper corner of the page in lieu of page numbers
|subtitle= – this parameter takes a keyword (1–3 uppercase-characters) that represents the subtitle. There are several common 'subtitles' used in currently existing LR citations. After a brief search, I found a handful; if you find others (top of the LR page), let me know. The subtitles that I found, with their associated keywords, are:
C → Chalutiers &c.
NV → Navires a Voiles
NVM → Navires a Vapeur et a Moteurs
SM → Steamers & Motorships
SV → Sailing Vessels
Example of a fully populated template:
{{cite plimsoll |ship-name=Herbert N. Edwards |lr-number=57979 |subtitle=C |guide=HEN-HEU |filename=30a0310.pdf}}
Before this template gets used in lots of articles, a couple of observations. "lr-number" is not a Lloyd's Register number, but an Official Number, many countries had these before the introduction of Lloyd's Register numbers in the 1960s, which led to the introduction of IMO Numbers in the 1980s. Also, there seems to be code missing for refrigerated ships (in English and French). A trawl through those vessels using the old url with an archive-url might be in order to find the exact wording used. Otherwise a trawl through articles linked from reefer ship could be worthwile. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
"Empire Highway"(PDF). Lloyd's Register: Liste des Navires Pourvus de Machines Frigorifiques (in English and French). London: Lloyd's Register. 1944–1945 – via Southampton City Council.
Unlike the other registers, the list pages aren't dated so it isn't obvious that the example's date should be 1944–1945. Perhaps for |subtitle=F, date should be constrained to the single date defined by the first two digits of the |filename=.
I was not able to find an English reefer example so have not added a keyword for that. Anyone?
I'm confused. The heading at the top of the left most column is divided into three sections. The English headings are (top-to-bottom):
No. in Book.
Official No.
Code Letters.
and in French:
Numero d'Ordre
Numero Officiel
Signaux
I chose |lr-number= to be the 'No. in Book' or 'Numero d'Ordre' because it is sequential, top-of-page-to-bottom, and printed in a larger font so is easier for a reader to find. This template only covers the period of 1930–1945 so whatever numbers were invented after that period are not relevant to this template.
"Empire Sailor"(PDF). Lloyd's Register: List of Vessels Fitted with Refrigerating Appliances (in English and French). London: Lloyd's Register. 1944–1945 – via Southampton City Council.
I guess I disagree about |lr-number= because the purpose of a citation is to help readers verify the text in our articles – the Numero d'Ordre and 'No. in Book' are helpful because they are sequential where as the Numero Officiel and Official No. are anything but sequential. I think that the template parameter name should remind editors which number is appropriate. I don't think that |number= does that.
|subtitle=R needs adding to the documentation. I can see that it is possible to confuse the numbers, so I won't press the issue. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure that others already figured this out, but new to me:
decoding 30a0311
30 – first year of a two-year range; in this case, 1930–1931
a – volume; a volume I; b volume II
0311 – page number; first page is 0001; even-numbered pages have French subtitle; odd-numbered pages have English subtitle
30a0310 (last lr-number is 57996) → 30a0311 (first lr-number is 57997)
So the question is: what to do about |subtitle=? Because editors seem to have used the French or English according to the page that holds the ship-of-interest's information, {{cite plimsoll}} should probably maintain that distinction. I'm thinking that I will tweak the template so that it uses the odd / even page number to ensure the selection of the proper English or French heading as the subtitle. When an editor sets |filename=30a0311 (odd: English) and |subtitle=C (meaning: Chalutiers &c.), the template will use the English heading: Trawlers &c. And, of course, the other way round for |subtitle=T.
Because it is now clear that the reefer list is part of a two-year range volume, I will remove the code that limits |date= to an individual year.
Regarding the left-hand column numbers, I see little point in including any of them. As has been noted above, the first number (the only series that is complete) is merely an entry number for that year's register - they are essentially internal LR temporary data-set identifiers which were mainly used to ensure that data-changes were applied to the right ship and to correctly cross-reference name changes - they were nothing to do with the ship itself and changed each year for almost all ships. Since, on any page, the 20-odd entries are alphabetical, it would be easy for anyone to verify information (or find more), even when there are multiple uses of a ship name, without needing the LR data number.
WP book referencing does not usually extend to line numbers, just page numbers, and here we are only presenting a single page anyway. If the resulting citation presents year/volume/subtitle/shipname it also provides what is needed to find the ship in the printed volumes. Davidships (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
You are, of course, free to omit |lr-number= if you so choose. I added it because the quality of the Register scans is significantly less than ideal so any aid to locating the correct ship seems worth having. Additionally, not all ships have names in the Nom du Navire / Steamer's Name column; see for example 57990 and 57991 on this page – presumably Heron.
I came across Combined gas or gas randomly as an unreferenced page. I added one reference, but couldn't find a good overview of the topic (other than in pages that copied Wikipedia). All of {{Combined-marine-propulsion}} has similar problems. How should one find sources? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I've expanded the text from my bookshelf, but I suspect it's a little Anglo-centric. Other contributions welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Problem with rating show on talk page
MS Viking Grace was lately reassessed from Stub-class to C-class. The template on the talk page was edited to show the class as C. However, at Talk:MS Viking Grace, the rendered template shows the class as Start. What is causing this? JIP | Talk16:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I've put a note on Talk:SS Absaroka regarding the post 1946 history of the ship. I've spent a bit of time trying to track down Lloyd's and other sources for the names after sale to the "Greek government" that is pretty solidly referenced. The only hint so far is an interesting one. A number of these old ships I've worked on ended up in the emigration/immigration business with more than one being with an Italian or Greek company. The Greek companies were very active out of Greece and the Balkans with destinations in Australia and the Americas. I do not have a "library" of sources regarding that activity, only running into it incidentally, so anyone with experience and sources there could possibly find an interesting history for this ship. As an aside, here is another loss of the old Plimsol search capability where names associated with tonnage and launch dates could be used with ranges to help locate "hits" in Lloyd's. Searches using the current capability gave good hits for Absaroka and none for the other names in my brief attempts. Palmeira (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
In this case, "Plimsol" searches could never have produced anything for the other names since those IDs were all after 1945. However we have secondary sources covering some of that ground and I've filled out the post-WW2 career a little (more to come next week, I hope). I think that the emigrant business is a bit of a red herring for this ship as she wasn't converted to a passenger ship, but apparently carried a handful of Italian emigrants on each of three voyages (well under the 12 permitted for cargo ships). Davidships (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
questioned this on my talk page and pointed out that many of the decade categories already have classes in them and suggested we discuss this more broadly here. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
