Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Lack of history about the ancient origins of the keel (and related topics)

I was looking at the Keel article for info about its ancient origins, but there was nothing there. I tried searching for sources for a bit and was surprised how difficult it was to establish a date, or even a date range for the development of the keel. I discovered that several related articles also suffer from a lack of historical background, so I'm raising this here.

In researching keel origins, I found that the Kyrenia ship (315 BC) definitely had one, but it's unclear if the Uluburun shipwreck (1325 BC) did or not, so those two establish a sort of upper and lower bound. I went ahead and added a rump section at Keel § History, but that range spans a millennium in the not so distant past and I'm hoping we can improve on that. Does anyone have a source establishing a tighter date range than that?

"Keel" wasn't the only article related to sailing that seems to be all about current practice with little or nothing about ancient roots. Use of a keel allowed for sailing against the wind and was in use in Greece by the 1st c. CE, but you wouldn't know it by the Tacking (sailing) article. One could excuse a casual reader of these articles for imagining vaguely that they were probably invented in the Age of Sail. Three more articles in a related area are Paddling, Punt (boat), and Towpath, none of which mention their ancient roots, and I think there may be many more such articles, because the more I look around, the more of them I find. All of these would benefit by a "History" section. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

One problem is the need to differentiate between the structural keel and the hydrodynamic keel that works to reduce leeway.

The structural keel is considered to be derived from logboats – as planks are added to increase the freeboard of a logboat you automatically have a structural keel. (Interestingly, very early Egyptian craft had the strength of the hull provided at deck level – unsurprising that that method was supplanted.) The "sequence" of logboat to keel of planked vessel is discussed in Adams, J. R.. A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: A Maritime Archaeology of Early Modern Europe . Oxbow Books. ch 4 – but it is important to note that he then goes on to point out the deficiencies of seeing this as a developmental sequence. Greenhill may have a simpler (but obviously more out of date) view on this. I will check. However, the discussion of the very early origins of structural keels appears to be something that has largely been sidestepped; one can suppose this is because the archaeological evidence is not sufficiently complete to allow a coherent analysis.

The hydrodynamic keel has more evidence, but links into the developing view of the sailing performance of ancient craft, on which there are varying opinions. Any article coverage would have to clearly state the uncertainties, as any superficial opinion (whatever its obvious merits) does not do the subject justice.

I hope to get back to this later. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. It looks like the full story is more subtle and complex than I imagined. For starters, I'm going to learn more about these differences between the structural and hydrodyamic keel (I think I only really had heard about the latter), and I'll have a look at Adams. I know you can't answer this if the researchers on the spot couldn't, but I can't help wondering if the Uluburun keel may have been more of a structural keel, and maybe that's what Pulak meant, when he wrote of Uluburun:

Although the latter dimension is somewhat uncertain due to the poor preservation of the keels outer surface, it appears, nevertheless, that this timber originally protruded beyond the outer planking surface by only a few centimetres. The keel timber would have served as the ship’s spine, as well as to protect the planks and support the vessel when beached or hauled ashore, but un- like keels of much later sailing ships, it would have done little to help the ship hold course or point nearer the wind under sail. In other words, it appears to be a rudimentary keel, perhaps more of a keel-plank than a keel in the traditional sense. (Pulak (1998) p. 211)

I'll stay tuned, and I'm subscribed to this discussion. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole subject of the history of ship design/construction/evolution is particularly complicated. Adams is the source that comes closest to a complete overview, but as a single author, it would be expecting too much for this one work to represent the full range of opinion. For instance, he appears to disagree with Whitewright's comment on the change away from mortise and tenon edge-joining of hull planks coinciding with the replacement of the Mediterranean square rig with lateen. Whitewright, though stating the limited understanding of the former, suggests the same cause for both transitions: economic, being the search for cheaper construction and maintenance. I have yet to fully understand Pomey's view on this (if he expressed one).

Looking at Pulak's comments, it is worth remembering that many (?all) cogs had plank keels. So keels that had a level of lateral hydrodynamic resistance could have co-existed with those that did not. (Better example may be the two Roman hull forms as characterised by Pomey – one like the Kyrenia ship and one much more flat bottomed.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Instead of Punt (boat), I think you should look at Setting pole for the method of propulsion. That does not address history, either. The only potential source that I can think of is McGrail, but I don't think he has any detail on history. (McGrail would either be his Boats of the World or Early Ships and Seafaring (not sure which volume.) As for paddling and towing, again I am not sure that there is anything for any historian to base anything on, beyond that these are long-standing methods of moving a boat. See Watercraft#propulsion for some attempt at covering this. The origin of the sail is unclear, also. Some argue that sail was used in the first settlement of Australia (50,000 years ago). Others argue against that, with a third group being a clear "we don't know". The earliest known examples are of no use as they rely on iconography, which the sail may predate.

What can be addressed are better links/hatnotes, etc, between articles to make stuff more easily found. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely; those, and redirects. Thanks for Setting pole; I was looking all over for it, but not by the right name. Unaccountably, it was not listed at Poling, but I'll fix that next. Also, thanks for mentioning Adams; his book is borrowable in full-text digital format from Hoopla, so I'll get that in due course. McGrail I'll have to look further afield for. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

TIR: wouldn't you like to have been present as an observer that day? I know I would.

An O/T reverie: what you would have seen, when it all started

So there you are, standing on shore on a sunny day in Lower Egypt, in 12,327 BC (April 9th). And just off shore, you can see 𓉔𓇋𓅱𓃀𓈖𓈎𓄿𓈠𓏤 (Semerkhet) and 𓇾𓏏𓇋𓈗𓄿 (Anedjib) out on their reed boat on Lake Mareotis, who are supposed to be bringing home some fish for market. They are trawling a net behind, but they hadn't caught much yet, and it was already late afternoon. It was entirely their own fault, because they had brought along a wine skin, and were having altogether too much fun goofing off and getting drunk, instead of paying attention to the net and searching for fish. Suddenly, Semerkhet reversed his tunic so it was off his chest and stretched between his two arms, which he raised high in the air, pulling his tunic almost taut between his upstretched arms. "Yo, Djib, look at me! I'm Horus! Ha ha ha ha!...". Anedjib cracked up laughing, looking at him. Just then, a breeze arose over the Mareotis, and Semerkhet had to lean into it a bit to avoid getting knocked off his feet. The breeze picked up and became stronger, and Semerkhet was laughing hysterically. "Djib, grab my shendyt, quick!" and while Anedjib grabbed hold to stabilize his friend and keep him from falling, Semerkhet leaned even more into the wind. After a while, they realized that their raft was moving at what was to them, a breakneck pace; certainly they had never seen their raft plying the surface at such a rate. Breathless, they held on, until the wind finally died down again some time later, and they sat down, exhausted, and exhilarated. Turning around, they saw that their net was nearly half full of grey mullet, catfish, and Nile perch, and amounted to the equivalent of a generous 3-day catch. Astounded, Semerkhet looked at Anedjib, and Anedjib looked at Semerkhet, in a true Eureka moment (which surprised both of them, considering that Archimedes wouldn't be born for twelve millennia). After selling their bounteous catch in the market and wasting all their profits on women and more wine, Anedjib, who was the smarter of the two, got an idea. He went home, and asked his sister 𓀀𓇾𓏏𓏤𓄿𓇋 (Baketamun) to sew him a piece of cloth the size of two tunics, and attach it to some poles about the height of a man. And she did, and on their next outing, Semerkhet and Anedjib hauled in a record catch and made another killing in the market. Other fishermen got wind of this, and soon all the women were sewing tunics together and attaching them to sticks, and the whole economy of the town started to pick up, which did not go unnoticed in the neighboring towns. And now, you know the rest of the story. Notes

Just thought you'd like to know how it happened. Well, it could've been like that, couldn't it? Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever put up a tent in a strong wind would probably have a different idea on the origins of the sail! More seriously, there is reason to believe evidence of at least two separate inventions of sails, as the mastless rigs of Island Southeast Asia and into the Pacific are very different from the technology that centres around the Mediterranean (so that is into the Red Sea and Persian Gulf and up to Northern Europe). The mastless rig, to explain, uses a prop to raise the sail. It is very different from a mast that is in a stationary position. Crab claw sail covers this somewhat – but the whole subject of Austronesian rigs is a difficult one. This is due to (a) the subject, because there are a lot of extrapolated theories on the origins of sail in the region, with precious little real evidence; and (b) within Wikipedia this is a subject that touches on the ethnic pride (which is justifiable, as long as it is kept under control, when you consider the first settlement of the Pacific) of at least one editor who has, at a minimum, severely tested the limits of how we should be using sources.

However, looking at earliest consideration of (possibly) sail by those working in this field, you have "After 58,000 B.P. the absence or reduction of the northwest monsoon would have reduced the likelihood of a Sahul landfall" (Hunt, Terry L.; Cochrane, Ethan E.. The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.) This is in the discussion about the first settlement of greater Australia. It is important to note that the word "sail" is not used in this discussion. So they may be considering the effect of paddling against the wind or just simply drifting with the wind. Jett discusses the movement of, for instance, obsidian between New Britain and New Ireland over a distance of 217 miles c.24,000 years ago. He does not discuss whether sail was used, but, in my view, that is a long way to paddle. (Jett, Stephen C.. Ancient Ocean Crossings: Reconsidering the Case for Contacts with the Pre-Columbian Americas (p. 170). University of Alabama Press. Kindle Edition.) Jett avoids mentioning the word sail in that discussion about obsidian, but on page 173 there is a section that starts "The invention of the sail was one of humankind’s most significant accomplishments...." but goes on to say that we really don't know when it happened. He does say "in the tropics paddle power alone would not be practical for very long voyages, owing to the high food and water requirements that such physical effort would engender".(p. 173) I do not have the reference for it, but someone did some research with paddlers in a hot climate to demonstrate the critical need for water. From this, the Wikipedia editor should surely take the view that all experts who write on the subject are extremely careful not to say anything definite – that would presumably be a route to academic ridicule.
Beyond the sources given, there are papers by Atholl Anderson (who seems to argue for relatively late adoptions of the distinctive sailing rigs of ISEA and the Pacific). McGrail has useful views. I am hesitant about earlier works: Irwin and certainly the ethnographer Hornell (who often never saw in use some of the sailing rigs he described). Hourani, though reliable on some aspects, is definitely wrong on others. Horridge has expressed a range of views over the years on the origin of sail in the Far East, with significant differences between his earliest and latest opinions. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have dived in and put some early origins of sail in Sail. I probably have more to say – especially if I can get my hands on a source that is out of print. Don't want to expect too much of that, though, so will wait until I see if it is any use. It is certainly difficult finding something to say that covers the huge uncertainties and yet actually tells the encyclopedia user something useful. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

List of history-blind (or myopic) articles

The above made me realize there may be quite a number of articles with poor or no coverage of relevant history, so I propose to list them here, bullet-style.

• Boat building
• Keel – History section begun; needs expansion
• Logboat
• Paddling – maybe nothing avbl?
• Punt (boat)
• Rowlock
• Setting pole
• Tacking (sailing)
• Towpath – maybe nothing avbl?
• Yard (sailing) – depictions exist

Feel free to add to the list, along with a brief comment if required. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with some of these is that whilst the subject obviously has a history, not much is actually known. Nor is the knowledge of those difficult topics likely to increase. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There may not be much, but it is what it is, and in some cases something may be known from ancient depictions, although often not easy to interpret. I'm working on researching sources about that now, and I hope to get a draft out there in a day or two. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Yard (sailing), the history probably sits better in Square rig. The problem is that the history of Square rig is actually very complicated. The version that many people describe is what existed at the end of the 19th century – because that is what you find on surviving square riggers. Just picking one definable predecessor version, that on ships like the San Juan (one of the Red Bay wrecks), was very different: the main yards were hoisted rather than continually in position, the topsails were sails for lighter weather (in the late 19th century the topsails were the last sails in use in strong winds); the rigging tension was lower as ropes were less developed (certainly no wire rope); there were no reefing points and the courses used bonnets, whilst topsails would be half-masted to reduce their drive; etc., etc.
Then the Mediterranean square rig was different again, with the distinctive (in archaeology) lead brail rings (they weren't always made of lead).
And the Viking square sail has been omitted from this list – its bearing out spar (whose Viking name I am still trying to remember) took the role of a bowline for sailing to windward.
The Egyptian square sail is also different, with the spar at its foot. (Not readopted until the Bentinck boom of the late 19th century.)

Doing all the reading for this is a big job, especially as there are intermediate points to the story outlined above. I don't think it is possible to make a start on this without having the full picture available, as that would affect the structure of the whole section. Diving straight in now would involve having to rewrite a lot of it. Of course, it is easy to pen a whole load of content as immediately above, but that is unreferenced. Tying the content to good references is much slower – and some of the unreferenced stuff above may, of course, be wrong (no-one's memory is that good).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know where it should be included (i.e., in Square rig). It could be that judicious use of {{Further}}, {{Main}}, or {{See also}} templates in other articles lacking history and pointing to the articles that have the history might be sufficient, and avoid too much duplication of effort. For now, I'm concentrating on my new draft (nothing to do with the history of these components) for which I have 19 sources, several of which from names I'm starting to recognized as being quoted all over on other articles (Casson and McGrail are the two that come to mind without having to go look at my notes.) Did you mean, the steng? Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ship disambiguation

I'm trying to correctly link a ship mentioned in the article Air raid on Bari. The ship is named Ardito, the first one named in the table of damaged ships. I found a source for information about it in Official History of the Italian Navy in WW2 (p. 52). The relevant text:

ARDITO: motor-sail boat (schooner) - fishing -32 tsl

Constructed in 1937. Pertaining to the ship-owner Vitangelo Caputo of Mola di Bari. Enrolled in the Naval district of Bari, matriculation n. 957.

Requisitioned by the Royal Navy at Mola di Bari on 19 January 1942 and with the same enrolled date, the acronym R. 220, in the role of the auxiliary ship of the State, for being employed in the service of minesweeping.

Hit from by, it sank in the port of Bari on 2 December 1943, during an enemy aerial incursion, lasting from 19:25 to 20:15. Carried aground and replaced in efficiency, on 1° March 1944 was derequisitioned and stricken from the role of the

auxiliary ship and with the same date rented, until 8 August 1945, by the British naval authorities in Italy.

And the same source list four other WWII Italian Navy ships with the same name. What would be the correct article title for the ship described above? —ShelfSkewed Talk 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShelfSkewed: It appears to be a fishing vessel. I'd go for FV Ardito (1937), but there is a possibility that GNG might not be able to be met. By all means research her, you might find enough info to create an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My concern was more with correctly disambiguating the link. If you think it makes more sense to simply remove the link, I could do that. Just trying to do the correct and sensible thing here. Thank you for your reply! —ShelfSkewed Talk 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Template editor needed

Can someone with template editor access take a look at our WP:ProjectShips template? Article talk pages with that template are getting multiple preview warnings for B-class checklistings, and coincidentally(?) several edits were made to those parameters a couple days ago. Thanks - wolf 08:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Per this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, the checklists have been depreciated (except for WP:MilHist, who have opted out of Project-Independent Quality Assessment) and removed from the template.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

And what are they gonna do about the giant, flaming-red list of warnings that pop up while editing the page now? - wolf 11:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Must be on your end - I checked several and haven't seen one. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I get them as well when I edit the talkpage and preview the page. Presumably someone will come along with a bot and strip all the checklists from the templates, as they no longer work. I think some of the discussion on the Wikiproject council page said that would happen eventuallyNigel Ish (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I do see an error message on page preview if the template is still using the checklist and/or importance, but nothing else. Looking forward to when a bot will come along and explode all of our watchlists. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Primefac operates a bot that can remove those b parameters from Category:Pages using WikiProject Ships with unknown parameters when the project is ready. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll subscribe to this thread and implement when everything's ready. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Prop design"

Prop design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a redirect about stage props, though it seems to me that this could easily refer to an aviation or nautical topic. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Help with Defiant-class patrol vessel

After reviewing Metal Shark's website on the "Defiant Model Series", I have some concerns about the Defiant-class patrol vessel article. There are a wide range of models in the series that range from what appears to be 27 feet (8.2 m) to 165 feet (50 m), which is not mentioned in the article. This also raises questions about the Defiant class article as well. In Defiant-class patrol vessel, should each model and its specifications be listed? I doubt that independent sources will delve into the details of the smaller ships. Any suggestions would be helpful! WMrapids (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The current "Defiant-class patrol vessel" article should concentrate on the (85 ft?) vessels being built for transfer to the US's neighbours and paid for by the US under the "Near Coastal Patrol Vessel (NCPV)" programme. The question is what should we call the article - Defiant-class appears to be a tradename applied by the builders. Perhaps rename to Near Coastal Patrol Vessel?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

deletion discussion that may be of interest to this project

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Age of Sail ships named Charlotte

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been relisted to encourage further discussion. Davidships (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of CSS Manassas (clipper) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CSS Manassas (clipper) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of White Cloud (steamship) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Cloud (steamship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Queen Mary 2

Queen Mary 2 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mystery ship

I was vacationing in Kauai and a mystery ship with the word Survey on its hull was putzing around offshore for most of my stay. Does anyone have any idea what type of ship this is and what it was doing?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s an Amazon ship apparently named Survey, from what I can tell. I don’t think we have an article on it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Bold Explorer is a pretty close fit, near Kauai on AIS. Recent photo shows the same colors / location from 12/27. We do have an article from when it was USNS Bold IMO 8835085 --Dual Freq (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the ease with which you guys have uncovered content, I will let you determine if a new article or an update to the old article is warranted. I only regret I did not take an additional photo of it from my helicopter tour of the island. It was very near our helipad, which was adjacent to the Lihue Airport on the evening I departed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

For $85 plus shipping I have 30 days from 2 days ago to purchase the video of the tour from the tour provider, which would likely have video footage from the helicopter's multiple cameras. If anyone wants to chip in for the video, I am not sure how copyrights would work, but I'd be happy to help.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. the video would have a lot of encyclopedic content including Jurassic Falls, a Pirates of the Caribbean set locaation, some George Clooney movie set location, lots of local content. Don't recall if we saw Wailua Falls.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The tour video will be copyrighted and not available for use on wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lightvessel#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lightvessel#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport

I dont have enough knowledge/understanding on classes/sub classes of ships within the US Navy so thought I would bring this up here. Under the Ships in class section there are 3 ships under "Expeditionary Medical Ship" however I think this should be called "Bethesda class Expeditionary Medical Ship" given that the Navy press statement announcing the name of the first ship stated "EMS(X) will now be referred to as the Bethesda Class Expeditionary Medical Ship." source here. Also the Navy press statement when announcing the name of the second ship made no mention of Spearhead and only named the ship as part of the future Bethesda class source here So I'm not entirely sure if this means that the Bethesda class needs it's own article or if it is still only seen as a sub class of the Spearhead-class.

So just looking for some help to understand what should or should not happen here as I dont want to make any unnecessary changes. Brandon Downes (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting question! IMO, the Bethesda-class should be spun off as its own article as they are designated as an independent class/function differently from the rest of the Spearheads. From the Navy POV, they are separate programs who developed with a similar chassis.

These are certainly not sub-classes and not Flights (as the Flight II Spearheads are its own thing).

I'll start working on it now. GGOTCC (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on a recent article from USNI, I believe the confusion on this topic is due to the Navy splitting the Spearheads and Bethesdas into their own class just recently. GGOTCC (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

George Roper (ship)

If anyone feels like assisting a bit with this, I'd appreciate it. It's... fairly comprehensive, although I've given two more RS's on the talk page with additional details. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For a start, the article needs an infobox. It would also benefit from description and history sections. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Editors might wish to comment on the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ship decommissionings in 1801 Lyndaship (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maria (1823 ship)#Requested move 14 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maria (1823 ship)#Requested move 14 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou

Articles of interest to this project;Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou&mdash & Maersk Hangzhou;have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tiny Particle (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Who rammed Sirdhana?

In 1960 a ship rammed the BI liner Sirdhana in Yokohama. It seems to have been the troop ship USS General William Mitchell, but the only sources I have found for this so far are websites run by private enthusiasts. Therefore I have added the incident to Sirdhana's article, as clearly she was rammed, but not to General William Mitchell's, as I cannot yet verify what ship rammed her.

I have exhausted my usual lines of research. Therefore I have posted a message on Talk:USS General William Mitchell appealing for help. If one of you has a source that can verify whether it was this troop ship that rammed Sirdhana, please will you add it to the General William Mitchell article? That would also give me a more authoritative source to add to the Sirdhana article.

Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Motacilla It was reported as "the 17800 ton American military transport General Mitchell" in the Liverpool Echo 26 November 1960; two short paragraphs sourced from the Associated Press. It quotes the Japanese Maritime Agency as saying there was one minor injury ("an electrician in the British ship, who had slight head injuries") but I think that might be small enough it's reasonable to leave it as "no casualties". I've added it to the Sirdhana article.

It looks like it was thought as very minor news, possibly due to the lack of injury - no-one else indexed in BNA seems to have printed it, and the Echo has it in the bottom corner of the back page as a space-filler next to "Chester man fined £5 for careless overtaking" and a bus that hit a lorry near the Mersey Tunnel. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotta love WP:SHIPS. An answer to an obscure question in under ten hours. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Found an additional source and used the description there of "rammed"; and added a mention to the sharp-bow ship's article. The Times 28/11 also had a five-liner in "Telegrams in Brief", adding nothing different. - Davidships (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray thankyou so much for your help! All we need now is ship photographs for all those articles about BI ships that lack one! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Was Dwarka bombed in 1959?

In 1963 there was an inquiry into the disastrous loss of Dara in 1961. Evidence heard by that inquiry included a statement that a terrorist bomb was detonated on her sister ship Dwarka in December 1959, in a cabin in which the Minister of the Interior of Muscat and Oman was travelling. The bombing is listed as one of a series of terrorist attacks, cited as background leading up to the Dara disaster.

However, the only source I have for this is one sentence in a book written by a passenger who survived the loss of Dara, testified at the inquiry, and was also a reporter for The Times. PJ Abraham seems to be a good author, but he omits the precise date of the bombing. And I would prefer to corroborate with other sources, such as 1959 news reports. I searched for sources online, but found only incidents affecting the Gujarati town of Dwarka rather than the ship of the same name.

Any contributor who can corroborate this lone report of Dwarka being bombed, please do! The book is Abraham, PJ (1963). Last Hours on Dara. London: Peter Davies. p. 104. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Naval officer saves minister from bomb". Evening Standard. London. 12 December 1959. p. 9.:

A British naval officer saved the Muscat Minister of the Interior from a blazing ship's cabin after a bomb exploded under the Minister's bed. The minister, Mr. Sayed Ahmed Bin Ibrahim, escaped with severe shock and burns. The bomb went off a few hour afters the 4851-ton British India line's ship Dwarka sailed from Muscat for Bombay. Commander Roger Fisher, the British naval officer resident at Bahrein ran into the blazing cabin and dragged oyt Mr. Ibrahim. At the American mission hospital at Matrah, Muscat, Mr. Ibrahim's condition was described today as " surprisingly good".

"Minister is saved by a Briton - Cabin On Fire - Bomb Attempt". Liverpool Echo. Liverpool. 12 December 1959. p. 23.:

Bahrein, Saturday. A British naval officer saved the Muscat Minister of the Interior from a blazing ship's cabin after a bomb exploded under the Minister's bunk, it was officially announced here to-day. The minister, Sayed Ahmed Bin Ibrahim, an uncle of the Sultan of Muscat, was on his way to Bombay for medical treatment when the bomb exploded soon after the motor ship Dwarka left Muscat. His British rescuer was Commander Roger Fisher, resident naval officer at Bahrein and former commander of HMS Jufair, base depot ship there.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou! I wonder if Commander Fisher got an award for that. I have failed to find anything in The London Gazette. With a surname that common I get either too many search results, or none if I try to narrow it down! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

He did not. He retired as Captain Roger Roland Sutton Fisher CBE DSC (1919 - 1992). He served throughout the Second World War, mostly as a staff officer to Rear-Admiral Arthur William La Touche Bisset in aircraft carriers. That's the role he was awarded the DSC for. Post-war he served in naval training, and was awarded the Order of the Cloud and Banner despite all his Chinese trainees defecting to the Communists. He served as deputy secretary to Lord Mountbatten before going to Bahrain where we know what happened. He subsequently served in several ships as a paymaster before becoming a Chief Naval Judge Advocate in 1968 (he was called to the Bar in 1950). He then commanded HMS Pembroke until 1973 when he retired and was awarded the CBE. In retirement he served as a circuit judge in London, and was a successful maritime artist (works). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Battleships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

FYI, Portal:Battleships has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Referencing style on Vasa (ship)

May I flag up Talk:Vasa (ship)#Referencing for opinions?

In short, in my opinion the article is stuck using a citation style that has less functionality for an encyclopaedia reader who wishes to easily see where article content originates. The only opinion gathered on this so far is opposition from the predominant (40%) editor of the article. Additional opinions would be welcome.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Marlborough (F233)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Marlborough (F233)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Norfolk (F230)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Norfolk (F230)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HMS Grafton (F80)#Requested move 25 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HMS Grafton (F80)#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Davidships (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Merchant ships: naming conventions (especially passenger ships)

We last had a discussion on this subject almost eactly a year ago, here, which rather petered out without reaching a clear view which might have prompted a revision or clarification of WP:SHIPNAME. At present that is completely consistent with WP policyWP policy in focusing on the most likely name that a reader will come looking for - then the greatest number of landings will actually be at the right place. Whenever in doubt, the choice of article name should be discussed on the article talk page in accordance with WP:TITLECHANGES and posted to WP:RM if necessary. We have noted before that cruiseship fanboys are often in a rush to move pages as soon as a new name is rumoured and more maintenance editing is required sometimes, including taking full acount of MOS:FIRST. There's a current example at Blue Dream Melody, which is sitting at the name under which it is currently heading for a shipyard in China and intended to re-enter cruising service some months hence. At the very least, WP:SHIPNAME could be revised to make it clear that, generally, only a name under which the ship has actually been in commercial service should be chosen. - Davidships (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I linked to the wrong section of the Article Titles policy - now corrected above. - Davidships (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Project 97 icebreaker#Requested move 30 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Project 97 icebreaker#Requested move 30 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And now followed up in a more general context at WT:SHIPNAME. - Davidships (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The move has been completed but I would welcome everyone to give their input about the naming guideline. Tupsumato (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo wanted of MV Quiberon.

Anyone got a photo of MV Quiberon? The article could do with one and she appears to have eluded my camera over the years Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

SS Cimbria

I saw this video on the wreck of the SS Cimbria (Jan 19, 1883) which resulted in the deaths of ~400 people and was surprised to discover that such a major maritime disaster does not have its own page. Does anybody have access to enough sources to get a page together? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether Motacilla could help with this? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary reports should not be hard to find. The Library of Congress has a large number of American newspapers from the 19th century that have been digitized and are available online free of any charge. Here is the front page of the New York Tribune from Jan 21, 1883. More modern discussions of the wreck might be more challenging to come by. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a short article on Cimbria on deWP, but it is somewhat focussed on discovery of the wreck and salvaged material; strangely the loss goes completely unmentioned in their HAPAG article (though the German-language bibliography may be useful). - Davidships (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed that SS Cimbria (1867) has now been created as a redirect to the entry in the 1883 list of shipwrecks. - Davidships (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Some sources from contemporary Australian newspapers. Brief note on sinking, longer note of sinking, brief and grisly note on the demise of some passengers, longer story of sinking including a breakdown of passenger nationalities and notable victims. There are other search results in the NLA Trove for "Cimbria 1883" that I haven't looked at. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's an article on the German Wikipedia, Cimbria (Schiff) (oops - already linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added to List of maritime disasters in the 19th century (437 deaths). Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou Pickersgill-Cunliffe for mentioning me. I apologise for not noticing this discussion until now. And thankyou Ad Orientem for the link to "The History Guy"'s YouTube video. It was worth it just to laugh at his mispronunciations. In particular, "Cucks-haven" and "Green-cock" sound like two places I should avoid visiting!

The History Guy overstates the Cimbria disaster by ranking it with Titanic. There were other maritime losses of life as great or greater than Cimbria, both in the 1880s and in the decades that followed. For just one example that I worked on recently, has he not heard of La Bourgogne?

Nevertheless, Cimbria deserves her own article in the near future. As well as her loss being a significant disaster, she was a member of an important class of HAPAG ships. de:Hammonia-Klasse says there were eleven ships in Hammonia class. And the Hammonia class is a good example of HAPAG buying from UK shipyards. Caird & Company seem to have built all of them! So far, English Wikipedia has articles on two of them: SS Silesia (1869), and SS Suevia (1874), both of which leave scope for improvement.

I note a parallel between the wrecks of Cimbria in 1883 and La Bourgogne in 1898. After each sinking, there were reports of some survivors commandeering a lifeboat and fighting off other survivors who were in the water. I don't know how common that was in other late 19th-century shipwrecks, but it may be appropriate to make a "see also" link between the two.

Lloyd's Register entries from the early 1880s are not very detailed, but they provide Cimbria's basic details. For example: Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping. London: Lloyd's Register of Shipping. 1882. CHU – via Internet Archive. And Haws, Duncan (1980). The Ships of the Hamburg America, Adler and Carr Lines. Merchant Fleets in Profile. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 0-85059-397-2. includes a thumbnail history of each member of the Hammonia class.

The History Guy cites The New York Times reports. As Cimbria was a transatlantic ship to and from New York, the NYT "Times Machine" archive has plenty of material not only about her loss, but also about her career. I am trying to wind down from a spate of working on ship articles, as I have pressing matters to address outside Wikipedia. Best wishes to anyone who fancies a go at writing Cimbria in English!

Motacilla (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Motacilla The NY Tribune from 1866-1922 is also digitized and online for free here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thai barque Thoon Kramom

Help translating this armament to plain English please

According to Warship International 23(3) p. 252, the ship Thoon Kramom (spelled here Thoon Kramon) "carried 4-32pML, 4 smaller guns". Could someone help translate this to plain English please? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be four 32-pounder muzzle loaders. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is at Thoon Kramom (1866 ship), if anyone wants to check it out. I haven't added an infobox as it seems the template is undergoing an overhaul and the documentation's currently unavailable. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Our article: 32-pounder gun. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A belated thanks also to Alansplodge for the above response. I'm taking the liberty to bump this section with a related question below. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Trying to track down this statement from shipsnostalgia.com

Hi again. So far I've been unable identify the exact fate of the Thoon Kramom (1866 ship) apart from being wrecked in the Chao Phraya River sometime before 1908, but there's post on shipsnostalgia.com that says she sank at her moorings, downed partly by white ants (apparently a term for termites back in the day). It's a long shot, as the post is from 2008, but the author seems to have been active as lately as last year, so I'm wondering if anyone here might be familiar with the site and could try to find out if they're still contactable, or otherwise track down the source? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent him an on-site message. I'll look out for any reply there. - Davidships (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No reply, as yet. - Davidships (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, and for the update. His profile on the site says he was a sailor back in 1965, so there's an unfortunate possibility that he may no longer be around or able to respond (knock on wood). But at least the information is probably out there somewhere --Paul_012 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Images of German merchant ships from before WW1

We have many articles on individual ships for which Wikimedia Commons currently has no image. Currently my interest is concentrated on German ships built before the First World War. I would be grateful for help from any colleague who has a good understanding of German and US copyright law.

Images that are available online seem to be mostly of two types. One is monochrome photographs, some of which have been colourised for shipping company postcards. The other is colour works of art, most of which also were made for former shipping lines, as either publicity postcards or, less commonly, the covers of menus.

Law is not my specialism. I tried to read the article "Copyright law of Germany", but it left me little the wiser. A template at the top of that article admits that it lacks clarity, and directs readers to "de:Urheberrecht (Deutschland)". I was little the wiser after trying to read that, either!

My understanding is that images published in Germany are out of copyright 70 years after the death of the author. But if we do not know who the photographer or commercial artist was, and hence when they died, then what? The images I would like to add to Wikimedia Commons are at least 110 years old. Their creators have probably been dead for at least seven decades. But "probably" is not good enough in law.

I have also been told that, for Wikimedia Commons, what matters is when an image was published in the USA, rather than in its country of origin. Is this true? A far as I know, we have no way of proving when many of the digitised historic images on Commons were first published in the USA. Were that rule strictly enforced, many images would have to be deleted.

CQD!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons needs to know the copyright situation in both the source country and the US. In terms of US rules, if the images were published anywhere in the world over 95 years ago (before 1 January 1929), they are now public domain in the US. There are more complicated rules that may allow some publications after 1929 to be okay, but anything before 1929 is free in the US.

For rules in Germany, see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. You may also want to seek advice at c:COM:VPC, which is the Commons noticeboard to ask copyright questions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Motacilla: - I've always found WP:MCQ to be a useful venue to ask for help with the copyright status of individual images. Plenty of knowledgeable people hang out there. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou @Mjroots: that will prove handy in future. Meanwhile, I have found the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, which seems to give away its digital images without any copyright restriction. It does not have a photo every German ship, and nor is every image high quality. But it has a lot of the ships that I was looking for, with an image of good enough quality to use. Motacilla (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Bridge-class OBO carrier?

In the WP:FEB24 drive to clear the backlog of unreferenced pages I'm looking at those relating to Cumbria and find this ship article: lots of detail, no sources. Could someone here hae a look and supply a source? Thanks. (The creating editor hasn't edited since 2011). PamD 15:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

SS Kensington (1893)

The images that appear here] are of the SS Kensington (1893).

These passenger lists are for the SS Kensington (1893), but I don't think the inset ship is? Though its likely to be a Dominion Ship. Which one?

Going on from that which Kensington ship is this]?

Grateful for any ideas? Broichmore (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The key difference between the images in the first link (Norway heritage) and the second link (Commons category) appears to be the number of masts. Are there any other notable differences?

The passenger lists are dated to 1906 and 1908, while the Norway heritage site shows a set with more masts while it was under the Red Star Line and later under the Dominion Line. The ship joined the Dominion Line in 1903. Is it possible that it had a refit between 1903 and 1906, so both sets of images are of the same ship? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Two of the pics in the first link, claim to be Dominion Line postcards. The passenger lists show a ship with considerably more superstructure, extended at height right up to the first mast. That would suggest a radical rebuild indeed, from the keel up.? Broichmore (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a colour version of the passenger list image, but labelled SS Canada.[1] From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a different image, and does seem more-or-less like Canada. - Davidships (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Davidships: I've been playing spot the difference between the black and white image of Kensington and the coloured image of Canada but I am struggling to see why you are declaring them to be different - even the number and position of the seagulls around the bow are the same. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was looking at a different one: [2]. Mea culpa. - Davidships (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the passenger list image is a specific ship, but a generic rendering. It was used on passenger lists for a number of Dominion line ships - there are online examples for a number of ships (for example, voyages by Canada, Dominion, New England, Kensington over 1898-1909 here, and also seen examples for Southwark and Derbyshire - and the central artwork was used also on line schedules. The artwork may have been based on Canada or New England but with a completely different funnel (not well done, the perspective isn't quite right) and a number of other differences. The extracted image should not be categorised as Kensington. I have added a similar note to the image talk page. - Davidships (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That ship you mentioned on the line schedules for the SS New England actually proclaims the ship as the SS Canada on its bow. It's the same ship as on my two Kensington passenger lists. So the generic ship, is at least nominally the Canada Broichmore (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Re the W P Stubbs painting of a US flag ship: given that he was a Bostonian and from the ship's appearance, I thought that it must be the Kensington built 1858 by unknown Philadelphia builders for H Winter & Co, Boston. 1052grt, 210 x 30 x 18ft, screw 500ihp; later owned by other Boston owners, and lost in collision off Cape Hatteras 27 Jan 1871 in service with Merchants Steamship Co, Boston. However, it appears from contemporary registers that this one may have been a side-wheeler, so doubts remain. I haven't tracked down the houseflag. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the Stubbs ship is the Kensington 1891, a 3 Masted, Steel cargo Sailing Vessel described here. The engine would require explaining. If it is this ship can we identify the flag? Broichmore (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing like it - just compare the photos, and not American. Davidships (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. you're right Broichmore (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed that this is indeed the 1858 ship, which led to mention of USN civil war service, which revealed........ our existing article USS Kensington (1862)! Please upload. - Davidships (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, many Thanks for your hard work David Broichmore (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A-class minesweeper displacement

There is a discussion at Talk:A-class minesweeper about conflicting displacement figures with HNLMS A. Since I am not a regular contributor to this project and have relatively little knowledge in this area, it might be best if more knowledgeable editors are able to clear this up. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What ensign to New York fireboats fly?

Those articles on individual New York fireboats that have an infobox vary as to which flag they display as an ensign. Some have the blue flag that bears the coat of arms of New York. Others have the tricolor of New York City. Abram S. Hewitt and Zophar Mills have both the stars and stripes, and the flag bearing the coat of arms of New York, side by side. Are they all correct? What flag to New York fireboats really fly as their ensign? Motacilla (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So far as I can see, all the NY firefloats illustrated in Commons that are flying an ensign, that is, at or above the stern, are showing only the Stars & Stripes, which is what I would expect. Other flags or bow pennants may also be flown. - Davidships (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Davidships (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nautical term

Just a bit of publicity for {{Nautical term}}. If you do need to link to a definition in either section of Glossary of nautical terms it saves a bit of work doing so. I hadn't realised how useful this template is in general article use until yesterday. (The template was created by User:Pbsouthwood.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for letting us know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The guns of Castillo San Felipe del Morro

Today is the anniversary of an incident in 1915 when the Castillo San Felipe del Morro in Puerto Rico fired at the Hamburg America Line ship Odenwald. In 1917 the ship became USS Newport News (AK-3). I have just revised and expanded that article to include more of her history.

I apologise for adding ambiguity to that article, concerning the size of gun(s) that the Morro fired at Odenwald, and how many shots were fired. The sources on which I drew variously claim the guns were "five-inch", "seven-inch", and "4.7 inch". And the number of shots reported to have been fired ranges from one to 58! By the editorial principles of verifiability and neutrality I have included rival claims, although I am sure that some of them must be incorrect.

Am I right in suspecting that the Morro had only one size of heavy artillery in 1915? There should be reliable records as to what it was, but I have no idea where to search for them. I would be grateful to any colleague who can resolve this uncertainty, to enable the relevant section of the USS Newport News (AK-3) article to be made that much simpler and more precise.

Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately a castle could have a variety of guns of different calibres. They were often replaced and upgraded on an ad-hoc basis when necessary. So it is feasible that all the sources are correct! Though I seriously doubt that more than one or two shots were actually fired. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Our QF 4.7-inch Mk I – IV naval gun#United States service article suggests that 4.7-inch guns were only deployed there when the USA entered the war in 1917. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Juanpumpchump and stripping of name prefixes

re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RMS_Britannia&diff=prev&oldid=1212253766 (and others)

See also User_talk:Juanpumpchump#Ship_prefixes

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As you have noted, I tried to explain last week why these removals are unhelpful and contrary to the current consensus. After professing that they were not interested in an edit war, I thought thay were calling a halt to this mission, but noticed that it has been resumed today. Now affects 34 articles and counting. - Davidships (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen three editors reverting these. I see no justification for any of them, Juanpumpchump has given none other than 'it's not painted on the stern'. So I'd support a bulk rollback across the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or does that username violate WP:DISRUPTNAME's provisions about sexually explicit usernames? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree to all the above. Disruptive editing and sexually explicit username. Llammakey (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that prefix should appear in prose at first appropriate point so support mass rollback of Juanpumpchumps edits. No knowledge on appropriateness of user name (sheltered life and not googling) Lyndaship (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is pretty unimpressive, as is the lack of any reply here, so I've rolled them back to December. Although there are probably more, if anyone else wants to take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User seems to have chosen not to continue since the roll-back. Thanks. No response on user name, though. - Davidships (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Like Lyndaship (talk · contribs) I must have lead a sheltered life, I can't see the inuendo. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Identifying a Venezuellan corvette

This image's title says it is the FNV Patria, while the image description says it is the FNV Victoria. Patria was HMCS Oakville, while Victoria was HMCS Wetaskiwin. We can see in this image a pennant of "PA" while in another image (supposedly of Victoria) a pennant of "VI". Did the Venezuelan navy use a pennant system that copied the ship name? If so, that would indicate "PA" is more likely to be Patria. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

These aren't the pennant numbers (Patria was C 13 and Victoria C 11) but the image of Victoria is from Jane's Fighting Ships which does identify the ship as such. I think it likely that you're correct and the image uploader has copy pasted the same image description twice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thanks for that. Which edition of Jane's Fighting Ships did you find the Victoria photo in? It would be useful to add evidence of publication to the file description. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The image description on commons says it was 1950, therefore out of copyright. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It is still useful to add publication information (when available) as it provides a more complete record for reusers. As a comparison, we don't say to remove historic information from Wikidpedia articles because it is old. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This volume has the image of the Victoria. I haven't checked earlier ones so it might be there also. The caption states that it was taken by the Venezuelan Navy in 1953. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Invisible spacing in infoboxes

Contributors to Wikipedia differ as to how much white space they like to have "behind the scenes" in infoboxes, invisible to people reading the articles. Some of us like to minimise it. Others like to align all the equals signs in a column, with varying amounts of white space to the left of them. And there are other personal preferences: whether or not to have one empty space either side of each equals sign, or to the right of each vertical bar. Readers of Wikipedia see none of this; it is purely a matter between contributors.

I thought that a few years ago, a discussion arose because some contributors were changing infoboxes from one style to another. I thought I saw that discussion reach a conclusion to the effect that whichever style was adopted by whoever either created the article or added the infobox, and as long as that style was consistent, other contributors would not change it. However, I have now searched for that discussion in order to refer to it and refresh my memory, and I have failed to find it. I have searched the archive of WP:SHIPS, and the archive of WT:MOSIBX, trying various search terms, but thus far I have drawn a blank.

I do not want to either break this consensus, recall it incorrectly, or misrepresent it to other contributors. If any of you recall this discussion, and know where to find it, I would be grateful for your help. Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is relevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t recall any discussions here on this issue (though that doesn’t meant it didn’t happen, of course), but that seems to be a reasonable attitude to take. And the guideline Murgatroyd linked seems to support that, only stating that it “can be helpful”. My take would be, go ahead and edit an infobox as you like, but if someone objects, best to let it slide. I have my own preferences for how an infobox should be laid out, but I don’t generally worry if someone alters a box in an article I wrote. Parsecboy (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've found it a nuisance when using AWB and insource to change things that you have ship something(space)=text, ship something(space)=(space)text, ship something=text, ship something=(space)text and then ship something(multiple spaces)=text. Appreciate that wiki allows editors to do how they think best but as the template uses ship something= I think we should prefer that and change as and when Lyndaship (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou all for your helpful replies. I am sure that I saw this topic discussed a few years ago, but your replies make me suspect that the discussion may have been in a broader WP forum, and not specifically confined to WP:SHIPS contributors. To take one extreme, if one laid out a ship's infobox without a line break between each parameter, it would (I assume) still display correctly. But it would be harder for editors to navigate, and gratuitously annoying!

If anyone else can recall this being discussed a few years ago, whether a consensus was reached, and if so, what that consensus was, I would be most grateful. Motacilla (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Or leave it to article creator's choice as to how infoboxes are done. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Elisabeth Smit

The Elisabeth Smit article has been nominated for deletion. I've done my best to expand from a stub using internet sources. There are plenty of book sources listed at MMS class minesweeper#Bibliography which might prove useful for expanding the article, if anyone has them. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

MV Dali

MV Dali (2015) is the ship involved in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. Currently a redirect, but probably notable enough for an article if anyone wants to write one. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Article now created. Kablammo (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice job! I have not seen any other articles about a modern box ship's design. GGOTCC (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Should this title be italicized?

• German Meteor expedition

The section subject is self explanatory, I hope. The expedition was conducted by German survey ship Meteor. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As Meteor seems to acting as a qualifier, rather than a straight noun, I tend to think not. - Davidships (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering the expedition has nothing to do with meteors, then it's a problem as it stands. _Broichmore (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But see also Discovery Expedition, Nimrod Expedition and Terra Nova Expedition which all have the ships' names italicised (sorry, I don't know how the link them preserving the italics). Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Southern Cross Expedition and Gauss expedition, the last being a German enterprise. Maybe the "German" adjective is redundant, unless there's another Meteor expedition from another nation? Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK - I agree that those are better arguments. Davidships (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

side effects of the campaign to remove hull / pennant number dabs

For the record, I'm indifferent to the removal of hull / pennant number dabs from article titles. To do or not to do those removals is not the topic of this discussion.

There are side effects to dab removal that are most likely being ignored. Many ship articles have nav box templates that list all of the ships of a particular class or whatever. Many of those templates use the {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, etc templates to render correctly formatted links. When displayed on a ship article, links from the nav box to the current article are 'self-links'. Self-links, are supposed to render in bold font; for example links to this page:

[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships]] → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships – correct because the title of this page is 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships'

But, if you link to a page through a redirect:

[[WT:SHIPS]] → WT:SHIPS – incorrect because the title of this page is not 'WT:SHIPS'

When editors here move a dabbed ship article to its undabbed form, the dabbed title becomes a redirect (unless the mover explicitly suppressed that option). For example, at the bottom of USS Will Rogers the nav box should 'highlight' the boat's name in the nav box; it is not highlighted. This happens because the link created by {{USS}} looks like this:

{{USS|Will Rogers|SSBN-659|2}}

[[USS Will Rogers|''Will Rogers'']]

Will Rogers

which is a link to the redirect. Compare the Lewis and Clark link at the bottom of USS Lewis and Clark (SSBN-644).

So, we can spend a lot of editor hours replacing {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, etc templates in nav box templates across en.wiki, or we can rewrite {{ship}} (the template that underlies all of the {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, etc templates). As a proof of concept, I tweaked a lua module version of {{ship}} in Module:WPSHIPS utilities that I wrote years ago as a possible replacement for the then-existing wikitext {{ship}} template. The tweak fetches the redirect's target name and uses that name as the link portion of the wikilink that the template creates. For Will Rogers:

{{#invoke:WPSHIPS utilities|ship|USS|Will Rogers|SSBN-659|2}}

[[USS Will Rogers|''Will Rogers'']]

Will Rogers

You can prove to yourself that this works by editing {{Benjamin Franklin class submarine}} and replacing the current Will Rogers template with the {{invoke:}} above and then use the Preview page with this template to preview USS Will Rogers. So, what to do? Nothing? Go on a crusade to replace {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, etc templates? Rewrite {{ship}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's not broke, don't fix it. As long as a wikilink gets to the correct article, does it really matter if get there directly or via a redirect? Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would not have taken the trouble to write the OP if {{ship}} were not broken. Yes, the links get to the target article but when the link to the target article is on the target article (as it is in a nav box) the 'self-link' is supposed to be rendered in bold font face. My example was the nav box at the bottom of USS Will Rogers which showed that the link to Will Rogers was not bold. Subsequent to (because of?) my post above, Editor Llammakey edited {{Benjamin Franklin class submarine}} which invalidated my example.

As an aside, {{ship}} is broken in other ways not related to the issue described here: see Template:Ship/testcases § up=yes; compare Live version column to Sandbox version column. In those tests, only rows A, B, G, and H should be showing the HMCS prefix and of those, the prefix should not be part of the wikilink in rows B, G, and H; row G should not be showing two prefixes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing to do with the original issue is when you rename an article, fix the links to it to point to the correct one - the what links here tool is handy here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing to do is to make it so that editors don't need to do anything which the new version of the template accomplishes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Ship}} and related templates {{HMS}} and {{USS}} are now broken, with the |4 option removed. Where is the consensus for this change?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a new version of {{ship}} (and {{HMS}}, {{USS}}, and the other ship prefix templates). This version uses Module:WPSHIPS utilities to do the rendering. Part of that is to emit error messages when something is not right.

Here is the doc page from 4 January 2008. There, you can see that a display control parameter value of 4 has always been invalid. There is no need to use that value so I have removed |4 from templates that use it. Were we to keep it, the rendering would look something like this:

{{ship|HMCS|Kootenay|H75|4}}

[[HMCS Kootenay (H75)|HMCS]]

HMCS

which is meaningless to the reader. Therefore: the error message:

{{ship|HMCS|Kootenay|H75|4}}

At the time of this writing, I have fixed all of the {{ship}} and ship prefix templates in the article name space that use display control parameter value 4; see this search.

The update fixes the problem initially described at the top of this discussion as well as the |up=yes problem described later. I am about to fix the numerous misuses of display control parameter value 6 in {{ship}} templates that do not include a ship prefix (the first positional parameter). Still to do: documentation fixes and support for a |no-tracking= parameter fix so that the template doc pages won't be added to Category:WPSHIPS: Template Ship parameter errors. If there is anything actually still broken in these templates please tell me about it and provide examples showing the break.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So there was no consensus for your changes. You just decided unilaterally to force article content to conform with your preferences.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)

The French ship Gapeau (B284) has been Nominated for deletion. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:USS Arizona#Requested move 13 April 2024

Your input is requested at the above discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is gaining traction, it's a radical change affecting 200 or so disambiguation pages that we already have. Are they all to be renamed. If the system is not broken why are we going to fix it. -Broichmore (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That would only be true if every ship index had a clear primary topic; almost none of them do. As per my comment in favor of the move proposal, List of ships named USS Monitor has existed in that location (or the older USS Monitor (disambiguation)) since 2004. This is not a new idea, nor will it cause anything other than the titles of these two pages to change. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Theben

Is it possible to take a look at Draft:Theben for me? Came across it through WP:AfC but figured someone here could narrow down notability much quicker than I can. You can ping me here or on the draft page if necessary. Cheers! CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41 - I think that there will be some useful content from her time in the South American trade. For example, when the British Government contracted in 1880 with Kosmos to provide the first steam mail service to the Falklands, Theben was a mainstay, also carrying passengers (including the Governor). There is a useful bibliography on Kosmos in the deWP article on Kosmos, including an English book on the Falkland contract, which I can access. - Davidships (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Davidships:, Thanks. I will approve it to the mainspace and tag it with your project tags so you can access further. Thanks for the help. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41 The headline picture at wrecksite might be by John Henry Mohrmann. I have a better copy, but no provenance. There's insufficient source info to enable uploading into commons. Do you have any backup knowledge of this painting? -Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been absent. I suppose that your better copy is this or that. The first is the site of a private museum at Terschelling (it would seem most unlikely that they would possess the actual painting, but the other is a serious book, and quite likely to give credits for the image, which is used on the front cover (and may well appear inside also). It might also appear in this more recent one. Davidships (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The museum has confirmed to me that the painting came from the aforementioned book by Reinhart Schmelzkopf (1938–2020), a Cuxhaven shipping historian. Can anyone access this book to identify the artist, etc. -Broichmore (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Mozambique boat disaster#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Mozambique boat disaster#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Enterprise

Ship class in Vietnam war , Enterprise was its own class ,Enterprise class carrier 2600:1002:B155:C040:5C48:E5FD:6CCD:D7B9 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

We already record its class in USS Enterprise (CVN-65). What is the issue or problem you wanted to tell us? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Gas turbines in 1943?

Were the Japanese using gas turbines on warships in 1943? I suspect not but there's no source and I'm not sure what to do here. Please comment at Talk:Type D escort ship#Turbine engines. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Steam turbines, not gas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a further problem in that Turbine engine redirects to Gas Turbine resulting in ships like Japanese cruiser Mogami (1908) linking there erroneously Lyndaship (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Turned out to be fewer bad links than I thought and hopefully I have resolved all of them Lyndaship (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Turbine engine might be changed to a diambiguation page? Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So done. Feel free to edit. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mykonos Magic

Could someone please take a look at this. An IP declines to engage on Talk - and has now deleted cited text and the ref. - Davidships (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Imperial horsepower vs. metric horsepower

A moment ago, an IP editor reminded me about the difference between imperial horsepower (1 hp = 745.7 W) and metric horsepower (1 PS = 735.5 W) on my talk page, and how e.g. Finnish and Russian sources that use metric units in general would likely use the latter unit for power.

Although I was aware of this difference and had, in fact, sometimes wondered about minor discrepancies when using {{convert}}, it never occurred me that this would be the reason.

Personally I could have continued living in ignorance, but now that I am aware of this issue, I can not overlook it. Before I commit myself to going through every article where I or someone else has converted kilowatts to horsepower or vice versa using the {{convert}} template (please help), I'd like to engage the community (here; not on my talk page) to discuss how this would be best done. Below are some topics for discussion:

• If the sources uses kW, should we convert to both hp and PS (as is done with e.g. cars) or only to imperial units as is done with lengths, areas, volumes and weights? Could this be misleading to "metric casual readers" who may be more familiar with horsepower than kilowatts when talking about engine power?
• If the source uses horsepower without further definition, are the "adjacent units" (e.g. main dimensions) sufficient to determine whether the power is given in imperial or metric units? If we are using e.g. Finnish, Russian or German sources, can we assume that metric units are used by default? Likewise, do US and British sources always use imperial horsepower? What if we can find both "metric" and "imperial" sources citing the same rating?
• If the source uses one horsepower, should we provide conversion to the other horsepower as well in addition to kilowatts to emphasize the unit of the "given" rating? Given the limited space in the infobox, should we agree that such power conversions should only be done in the article body? Who gets to choose which unit to use in the infobox especially in case of modern ships where "professional sources" may use kilo- or megawatts, but e.g. news articles may convert them to horsepower for the casual reader?

Tupsumato (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I provide conversions for all units both in the infobox and in the main body. The conversions have a very limited effect on the size of the infobox (usually on weapons since the guns often need to be characterized as AA guns, etc. See French destroyer Frondeur for an example of what I mean.

You need to be very careful about assuming that books written in metric countries use metric measurements as US editions sometimes have all measurements converted into Imperial units. Especially bloody tons!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The abbreviated dual conversion is indeed more compact than I thought: 41,480 kW (56,400 PS; 55,630 hp). However, I would still urge editors to use their best judgment: if the conversion clutters the infobox excessively, better leave it to the article body.

Your remark about the sources is noted. The fact that metric horsepower is abbreviated "hp" in "metric sources" doesn't help the issue either. However, I presume assuming metric horsepower in metric sources about metric ships is fairly safe. That is, unless the engines were purchased from imperial countries... Tupsumato (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register went metric for dimensions with effect from the 1975-76 edition, and they introduced kW for the first time. From just a very small random sample, most (all?) converions were initially made from the same hp figures as before at the 0.7461 rate, then changed to a 0.7355 rate over a decade later in c1989, but using the same bhp! In the latest edition that I have to hand (2000-01) there is no clarification on this point in the introductory explanations, but I have not looked in the 1970/80s (and will not have time this week to look at that). - Davidships (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Auxiliary warships

Following the 6 week plus deletion discussion about the notability of the French ship Gapeau (B284), I've opened a discussion at MILHIST re the notability of naval trawlers and similar vessels. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Borys Aleksandrov

Shouldn't Borys Aleksandrov (research vessel) be RV Borys Aleksandrov ? -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are acceptable disambiguation practices. Personally I prefer brackets over prefixes. Tupsumato (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

My preference too. Because the ship name is a more natural search term than RV. - Davidships (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)