Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Assessments: Class assessment needed • Log Categorize and tag: New article feed Cleanup listing: Articles tagged for cleanup alphabetically or by category at Labs Expand stubs: Stub-class ship articles Images: Requested ship photos • Infoboxes without an image Infoboxes: Infobox needed • Infobox conversion needed Recent changes: US changes • UK changes • cruiseship changes
Information and sources
Article alerts: Updated daily Guidelines Manual of Style Infobox ship: Usage guide Naming Conventions (articles) Categorization Project Scope Past AfDs Popular Pages: Most popular ship articles Tools and Templates Ensigns {{Navy}} {{USN flag}} Outreach Resources Participants Barnstars Project subpages

USS and USNS

An editor has raised an issue on my talk page. They state that ships of the same name with different prefixes (i.e. USS ''Foo'' and USNS ''Foo'') should be disambiguated further with their hull number because they are both operated by the United States. I am unclear if the prefix already disambiguates the ships or if they need the extra disambiguation like a hull number or year of launch. Furthermore, would this also apply to the Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary since they too share the same nation of operation. Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The editor that raised the issue is addressing US Navy ships only, not ships from the RN or any other nation. (fyi) - wolf 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore does is this apply not only to USS and USNS, but also to USCGC and USRC and USFC since those ships overlap as well? Llammakey (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguators are used to create unique article titles. It is not possible to have more than one USS Foo article. If the 'natural' title of an article is USS 'Foo' and there is already an extant article with that name, the new article gets a parenthetical disambiguator so that the title is unique. The USS Foo article is not the same as the USNS Foo article so no need to distinguish between these articles by disambiguation. USS Foo (ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (T-ABC 1000) – with dabs – should redirect to: USS Foo and USNS Foo respectively. For completeness, redirect articles with titles using wrong prefix/dab combinations might be created: USS Foo (T-ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (ABC 1000) might both redirect to one ship article (USS Foo) or redirect to a ship list article: USS Foo or List of ships named Foo.

It is the article title that is being disambiguated; not the ship.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What Trappist said; and to avoid any confusion, the {{distinguish}} hatnote can always be used. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I was doing, but I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly after the editor raised concerns. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Another good reason why we shouldn't use hull numbers, we should use launch dates. This would help with disambiguation, The problem will only get worse with every passing year, it will be unintelligible by the next century if we last that long. Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This applies to all ships, and all navies. A disambiguator is only needed if there are two or more vessesl with the same prefix and name. Thus USS Foo, USS Bar (1797), USS Bar (1840), USS Bar (1935) etc. Also, USS Foo, USNS Foo, USCGC Foo (CGC-1) USCGC Foo (CGC-77) etc. Llammakey has been doing good work recently moving article to non-disambiguated titles where that is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Grantala and Figuig

Please will someone with the right tech skills sort out a duplication of Wikidata pages for HMAS Grantala and fr:Figuig (paquebot de 1916)? The English, Farsi and Polish articles are linked, and have the Wikidata page Q5630359. But the French article has its own Wikidata page Q109037792, which makes it harder to link it to the others. Thanks! Motacilla (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: is a Wikidata expert. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Regina Maris

The Regina Maris presented in wikipedia was not a schooner. She was a barkentine. 24.113.147.58 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The article itself seems basically correct. From 1908 until 1963 she traded as the topsail schooner Regina (three fore-and-aft rigged masts, with two square sails on the upper part of the foremast). This is clearly described in the article which notes that, after the fire and changing hands, she was re-rigged as a barkentine (foremast fully square-rigged, as can be seen in the photo. However the article title is wrong, as she was only a barkentine after being renamed Stella Maris. As, i my view, this is the name under which she was best known, I suggest moving the article to Stella Maris (barquentine) (the spelling already used in the article) or - my preference - Stella Maris (1908), which would mirror Stella Maris (1929), the former USS Vixen (PG-53). Davidships (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I support the move to Stella Maris (1908) - keeps things from getting bogged down in the rigging type Llammakey (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ooops! Brain failure - certainly less than stellar performance. Should be Regina Maris (1908) etc etc Davidships (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Support move to Regina Maris (1908). Also the redirect Regina (1908 schooner) needs to be created once the move has been done. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom

Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict does not include Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom. And "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" says it cannot be edited to rectify this. Will someone who understands how this works please ensure that "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" is included in "Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict"? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The category has been added. Llammakey (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Engine infoboxes

Main page: Template talk:Infobox aircraft § Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Schooner Lily -> "HMS Bounty" -> USS Metha Nelson?

Please come to Talk:USS Metha Nelson to discuss differing tales of this / these ship(s). The articles about Lily(German) and Metha Nelson name different shipyards and building dates but jointly have her become HMS Bounty for the 1935 film, and USS Metha Nelson in WWII. Is there a uniform truth? Alossola (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340815.2.214&srpos=193&e=------193-en--20--181-byDA-txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340814.2.142&srpos=6&e=------193-en--20--1--txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---

i'd be careful though. even though the information of those reporters who just came back from drinking a few glasses of champagne at the harbor are very reliable, they don't actually precisely specify which ship they mean when they say "venerable Lily".

although there remains reasonable doubt, the answer seems to be that 2 ships were reconditioned for the film. one at the Craig yard, one at Wilmington Boatworks. Nowakki (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

you can also easily find more evidence that the "Metha Nelson" was used in a couple of films in the early 1930s.

https://archive.org/details/monroe-morning-world-1932-09-04/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22metha+nelson%22

including in Treasure Island (1934 film). you could try and compare those ships to the pandora in the 1935 film.

it would not make sense to build an accurate replica out of a replica when you also need an inaccurate replica for the movie to act as the pandora. Nowakki (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nowakki! I'd never have found these sources!

There are two ships in the story (and the movie), Bounty and Pandora. The first two links make the names and roles quite clear. In 1934, "New Bounty (= Lily) was (re)launched". Festivities were on Metha Nelson = Pandora. The former had "starred" in movies from 1931 on - not the re-launch.

The last link, Monroe Morning World, 1932, gives an insight into the history of Metha Nelson by naming some of the movie credits as a classic full-rigged ship. The only logic conclusion is that Pandora received her old name afterwards. Till today, there's no clue for me what happened with Lily.

I'll have to sort out the sources to find out more. Alossola (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

having a date range for a big harbor event in a 20th century known US location is easy. anybody can predict what words a newspaper article is likely to contain.

if you want you can puzzle together the whole history of the Lily from California, Oregon and Washington digital newspaper archives. The mere departure or arrival of a ship in a town should in general at least result in one line in a listing. An accident would be front page news in half a dozen papers. if it bled, it led. Nowakki (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Dunno how to do that, and I have a lot of informations. Metha Nelson was clearly a full-rigged ship in the film trade from 1931 or earlier, rebuilt from the three-masted schooner she was before. The fabled launch of Bounty in 1934 can only be Lily, and she is named clearly, more than once. The treasure hunt of 1938 is clearly placed on Metha Nelson. The only "obstacle" is that the Navy talks about Bounty in her military registration. I deem that an error.

We worked on USS Metha Nelson, and I have Lily in my space, ready to launch tomorrow, 6:00 UTC. Wanna take a look? Alossola (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

this is what i mean. there must be something interesting there. maybe a shark attack.

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=q&hs=1&r=1&results=1&txf=txIN&txq=%22schooner+lily%22&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------- Nowakki (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

also for the sake of gathering intelligence it would always be nice to know which shipping companies the boat sailed for, and where it spend all the boring time, sort of like a statistical overview or just a big table listing boring journeys. you never know who might be interested in 20th century pacific coast trade. Nowakki (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Great sources, thanks! No big news though, except that there might be another(?) Lily which was lost in 1891, or she was rebuilt from a wreck(??) Alossola (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Streamlining Formatting

The class overview template has standard "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" ("Class before" and "Class after") to show the development of particular classes. However, in some cases multiple classes were built concurrently for different reasons, enough that a third line for concurrent classes should be added.

The clearest modern example are the US Littoral Combat Ships. Both classes were ordered and are being built concurrently, with the Freedom-class receiving odd hull numbers and the Independence-class evens. Another would be the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates: the orders were for three Type 26s in 2017, five Type 31s in 2018, and then five more Type 26s in 2022 (Royal Navy orders only), with both classes being built concurrently by different yards. The Benson class destroyer was not succeeded by the Gleaves class, they were ordered and built concurrently with different shipyards building different classes (primarily Bethlehem yards building the Bensons, particularly the repeat ships). US Destroyer Escorts of WWII were not ordered/produced in the Evarts->Buckley->Cannon->Edsall->Rudderow->John C. Butler order implied by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys (in turn implied by the hull number of the lead ships), they were ordered/built as follows:

1. First 50 Evarts-class ordered under a British contract in November 1941

2. Another 70 Evarts-class along with 600, Buckleys, Cannons, and Edsalls ordered in January and August 1942 and built concurrently (classes mainly distinguished by different propulsion plants)

3. Rudderow and John C. Butler re-ordered from 3" designs in late 1942/early 1943 and built concurrently (followed by a short-lived order for 205 ships)

These are just particularly obvious examples for ships of the same type built at the same time by the same nation. There are more examples, particularly if you start considering ships with the same official classification but different capabilities. Germany built a few different types of U-boats concurrently, but the bulk of their production were the Type VII medium-range and the Type IX long-range submarines (with some specialized boats). This is a grey area, and I have deliberately chosen an example that in my opinion should be included as concurrent classes, but other examples would likely not be suitable (continuing the theme, the specialized Type XB and Type XIV).

These are sometimes noted by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys, or even Subclasses even when the latter is not appropriate. For example, the Type 23 frigate lists the Types 26, 31, and 32 as ships that will succeed this frigate, but the Type 26 and Type 31 pages don't mention the others in the Class Overview template. The three pages make it clear that the Constellation class was preceded by the Freedom and Independence classes, but neither LCS page notes the other concurrently in the Class Overview template. Others, particularly the WWII destroyer escorts, don't mention this at all and as it currently exists gives an incorrect view of progression between the classes. For Subclasses, the Type XXI notes "Type XXIII (parallel coastal submarine project)": these were two parallel branches of the Elektroboot concept, but the Type XXIII was not a variant of the Type XXI in the way that Subclasses is usually used (such as the Dunlap variants of the Mahan-class destroyer).

Currently the best attempt to recognize the differences would be the Type VII U-boat page. The Type VII page has the Type IX listed as a succeeding class, but as "Type IX (long-range complement)" in an attempt to be a bit more accurate (this is not mirrored on the Type IX page). It's clunky and works if there were a handful of cases, but it's not as useful for a larger scale, and other U-Boat pages don't use this nearly as well (like the Type XXI and Type IX pages).

Given the number of examples I believe we should add a third group to formalize the concurrent classes, along with rules about when this should and should not be used to clear up the grey area.

Slightly modified from original posted in Infobox ship begin based on advice from Trappist the monk

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)