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

Scope?

I was wondering, what exactly the scope of this project is? In particular, I wanted to clarify that it only covers "ships", and not "watercraft" in general? Covering watercraft more generally seems like a natural extension for this project.. for example, during this proposal for WikiProject Submarines, some editors assumed that submarines were within the scope of WP:SHIPS.

If the scope isn't all "watercraft", then maybe there is interest in expanding its scope to include all watercraft? Mlm42 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A solid scope for this project was never assembled due to lack of participation in the discussion. Essentially we cover commercial and military ocean going ships over 100' in length and any length for military ships. We cover biographies of ship builders and architects but not ship owners. We do not cover ship battles or ship armaments. Those are covered by milhist/maritime warfare and weapons task forces. Expanding the scope of the project to cover bass boats isn't exactly right. A ship is not a boat and a boat is not a ship. Brad (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. But notice my choice of word: "watercraft". A ship is a watercraft. Is there opposition to expanding the scope to include all watercraft - i.e. smaller vessels as well? Mlm42 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a grey area. I think there's been a WP:BOATS project mooted on occasion before, but there never seems to be sufficent interest. And expanding WP:SHIPS to cover Sea-Doos...er...maybe not. But a WP:BOATS would make sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Boats#Oppose as I'm tired of repeating myself ie a boat project is ridiculous. Brad (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't suggesting a WP:BOATS; there reason I came here is because I saw that failed proposal. If there really is opposition to excluding watercraft based on size, then that's fine. But a 100' cut off seems a little arbitrary.. what happens to the articles about vessels that are 95' long? What project are they under? I've also started a discussion at the "Maritime transport task force", to try and clarify their scope as well. Based on the names, it seems to me that "Ships" should be included within "Maritime transport".. Mlm42 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You really need to do more reading on this never ending and drama charged topic. A very elegant suggestion was given here (a maritime project) but all conversation and suggestions were dick-slapped by the 'owner' of the maritime transport task force formerly WP Maritime Trades. Brad (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I'm only trying to help. I wasn't suggesting WP:SHIPS be merged into Maritime transport, since that's obviously a controversial move. I assume you were referring to User:Haus, in your comment? Anyway, I was only pointing out that the term "Maritime transport" includes the concept of "ships".. unless I have misunderstood some subtlty here? And your comments aren't very helpful towards establishing a scope..

I think if we stay cool, then we can sort this out. Mlm42 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this project does cover some of the smaller stuff too. Whether there should be a cut-off at 100'/30m or 100 tons is a matter for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, do I understand correctly in assuming that there is a desire to create a project analogous to "WikiProject Aviation", called something like "WikiProject Maritime", as a child of WP:Transport and as a parent project for WP:SHIPS? (By the way, the word "Maritime" also sounds like it would include Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceans) Mlm42 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no desire to create anything until some rational thought and conversation take place. If things had gone better with maritime transport I could have easily seen this project giving all military ships to milhist/maritime warfare and folding what was left into maritime transport. But a lot of work has gone into this project and it's been a defacto project for military ships. Most of the traffic on this talk page is over military ships. I don't see this project merging easily anywhere at this moment and certainly not on a whim. Brad (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing anything on a whim; if a new project is to be made, then it's probably a good idea to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Here's my understanding: Haus started a discussion expressing his desire to move to a task force of WP:Transport. After two or three days of discussion, during which time a few other ideas were brought to the table, discussion stalled for almost a week. Then Haus moved Maritime Trades to the task force, and Brad, you felt this move was too hasty. I certainly don't think Haus meant to upset anyone.

And as Haus points out, it's nothing that can't be undone. In any case, it certainly doesn't sound like Haus was against the proposal to make a bigger project. Let me ask this: Do you think it would be better to have a "WikiProject Maritime transport" instead of the "Maritime transport task force"? If so, then this could be accomplished with a relatively straight-forward move. Mlm42 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

Before charging off with new projects, names or mergers we should be looking at definitions of maritime, boat, and ship. Wording and definition is a bit important here so that the average editor can grasp a scope. Afterward it can be decided what to merge or what to rename or move. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a ship, what is a boat?

I think the crux of the matter is that this WP needs to decide where a line is drawn between ships and boats. Such a line could be drawn by length [at say 100' (30m)] or by weight [at say 100 Tons (GT/GRT/BOM or whatever quoted)]. Once this has been decided, then it will be easier to assess the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The 100/100 guideline is what I've been adhering to for quite some time now. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

100/100, unless the ship is a military type primarily notable for its military service? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose a definition of what a "ship" is, is good to include in the article ship (if well referenced, of course!), and the same for "boat"; but these definitions don't have to correspond to the scope of this project. The scope of a WikiProject is whatever its members decide it is (and it doesn't have to be extremely precise).

Fundamentally, a WikiProject is a group of editors with common goals. So if you guys want to use the 100/100 rule for the scope, then that's perfectly fine; it should probably be included on the project's main page, so you don't get confused editors like me. Mlm42 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mlm42, we are not about to redefine what a ship is in the ship article. What we need to establish is where WP:SHIPS gives way to WP:BOATS, then the proposal above can be given better consideration. Currently, we cover many smaller boats such as Mystery, Maud etc. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, “ship includes every description of vessel used in navigation”.[1] The Historic Ships Committee have designated a vessel below 40 tons and 40 ft in length as a boat.[2]. US codes are similar to the Merchant Shipping Act.[3] I have always understood that a ship is any vessel which cannot be carried on another vessel. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So USS Cole is a boat then? Mjroots (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the RAN, a boat is a vessel that is intended to be launched from another vessel, not merely one that is transportable as cargo. The only exception I can think of is the submarine, which is always a boat. Rumiton (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here once again is another trap we fall into when people start pointing to outside sources much like the US Navy style guide thread below. Wikipedia has its own style guide and so should wiki projects. The whole point of this discussion section is to establish a scope for this project. Brad (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe it would be useful to add to the first paragraph of the project page a sentence like "For us, a ship is any vessel which is over 100 feet long or weighs over 100 tons." Is that fair? Mlm42 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer to this project, I rarely wade into discussions. However, this issue has been bothering me since I first learned of WP:SHIPS. The project page needs a Scope note. Period. It looks like it used to have one but it no longer does. I raised the issue in a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats. The current scope guidelines of this project seem to be "If it looks like a ship, swims like a ship, and quacks like a ship, then it probably is a ship." The most helpful discussion I have found can be read here in the Archives. I'm not offering an opinion on what the scope should be; I just want there to be an "official" Scope note on the project page. —Diiscool (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the previous scope discussions I've started have been intended to make an official scope to post on the main page. Without any resolution as to a scope there is no official scope to put on the main page. I guess I'll just make something up and get it over with. Brad (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Has an official scope been established for ship v boat?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the scope of the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope). It may even be a good idea to include this directly on the main project page. Mlm42 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

SMS Konig, etc

I recently came across a number of pages where the opening sentence was in the format “SMS König ("His Majesty's ship King") was …”. I changed them to what I thought was the standard format; these were reverted with the explanation "those were decided during the FAC, please do not change them".
I raised this with the editor(s) concerned; I’m now raising it here to get a wider perspective, as it affects a number of articles, and there is the suggestion here that this format is now a requirement for FA status.
Is this opening style an improvement? Is it even a good idea? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(The case for the prosecution)
The ships name is Konig; the word means "King". That is not the same thing as saying the ship name is "King". I have never seen a reliable source refer to this ship as HMS King, and I think it would be OR to say so. It is not usual in sources to give the name in translation; the usual style would be to use the name as given, with a comment on what it means (which is what we used to do). Does it mean we should refer to Konig as "King" thereafter in the article?
As for the FAC bit (does anyone know where the original discussion is, BTW? I can't find it), are we going to be using this format in future everywhere? Can we expect to see "ORP Orzel (Ship of the Polish Republic "Eagle")..." when that article is up-graded?
And if part of the point of the exercise is to give a translation for the "SMS" ( which is not a courtesy we seem to extend to ships of anybody else’s navy), if we feel it is beyond the wit of man to know SMS is analogous to HMS or USS, then surely a footnote, or a link to the SMS (disambiguation) page, or to the Seiner Majestät Schiff page (we have both) should suffice.
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wait, what? What?! I can understand the case for disambiguating the "SMS" prefix, but the ship's name? Good grief! That's overkill of the worst degree, I think. Explaning what "König" means in the text makes sense, but in the bolded intro? No thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rumiton brought up something I didn't know just this week: that the Danish and Swedish equivalents are often translated "His Danish Majesty's ship" and "His Swedish Majesty's ship", because "His Majesty's ship" might give the reader the impression that the ship is or was a British ship. Makes sense to me, so the latest SMS article to hit A-class now begins:

SMS Markgraf ("His German Majesty's Ship Margrave")

Is this acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry about nationality confusion (in most cases) in regards to "his/her majesty's ship" on the article for the ship itself, since the article will dispel that easily (the only possible exception being perhaps a ship that was transferred between two or more navies that used abbreviations for "his/her majesty's ship").

I also don't think anyone is saying to use the translated name aside from introducing it. I would prefer to see a name translation to English in the prose somewhere, such as in the history, discussing the ship's namesake, etc. It would generally be OR to refer to SMS König as SMS King, because even though "könig" translates to "king", "König" is the proper title the ship was commissioned with and referred to as such all her life (I'm pretty sure that English-speaking navies called her König and not King as well, with a few exceptions).

I think that this would be better, for the example of König, if the translation cannot be feasably worked into the prose:

SMS König ("His Majesty's Ship King")

And so on for other non-English-speaking navies. Also, can someone give a link for the FAc this was discussed in? bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd go partly with Dank's suggestion. KDB, SM, SMS, ORP etc could be translated, but ships names should not be. Thus KDB Bendhara Sakam (Royal Brunei Ship Bendhara Sakam), SM U-14 (His Majesty's Submarine 14), SMS König (His Majesty's Ship König), ORP Orzel (Ship of the Republic of Poland Orzel). Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Dank): "His German Majesties Ship" looks vaguely familiar, but as it isn’t what SMS actually means, it feels like an invented term, which we aren’t supposed to do. And it still leaves the ship name as Margrave, when it should be Markgraf

Also seems like tinkering with the present format to make it acceptable, when it is altogether unclear why the previous format is unacceptable. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reply generally): To clarify, if I was unclear, above: This format affects about a dozen articles, all WWI German (and Austrian) battleships; the format in ship articles elsewhere, (and in the articles on these ships before they were upgraded) is "SMS Konig was (whatever).. Her name means …"

Why is that now wrong, and what is the pressing need to change it? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seiner Majestät Schiff does not mean "His German Majesty's Ship", it merely means "His Majesty's Ship". Seiner Deutscher Majestät Schiff would be "His German Majesty's Ship". Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but inserting the word German (or Danish or Norwegian) into a ship's name prefix is a NATO convention that has gained wide currency over many years. It establishes that the prefix HMS in English refers specifically to ships of the (British) Royal Navy. It is not an "invented term" as above. Here [[4]] is a site that acknowledges this. There are many others. The question of trying to translate proper nouns, such as the names of ships, does not merit serious discussion, though explaining them in the text is always informative. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering who would fall into that trap! HMS does not specifically refer to ship of the (British) Royal Navy. HMS may stand for Hans Majestäts Skepp or Hennes Majestäts Skepp, both referring to ships of the Royal Swedish Navy. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Rumiton)

I recognize the convention; at least I’ve seen it in the context of other royal navies, but that hardly applies to Germany nowadays [5] and using a NATO convention for WWI Germany would be a stretch. As I said, it looks vaguely familiar, but I can’t off-hand remember where I’ve seen it; do you have a source that has used it for WWI German ships? And the convention as a whole is still problematic in the light of the guideline. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(general)

I realize it’s early days, but can I suggest the idea of translating the ship name doesn’t have a lot of support, and that the feeling here is that it’s better to put an explanation of the name further down in the text somewhere instead?

As far as what to do with the SMS, can I suggest we have three options:

a)Translate as some variety of "His Majesties Ship" (and negotiate the minefield that is leading us into)

b)Use a footnote, or link to the SMS/Seiner... pages (for anyone who wants to know)

c)Leave it as SMS and trust readers will work out it is something analagous to HMS/USS (which is what we do on other ship pages).

Hmm? Xyl 54 (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't pretend to have a perfect answer but I still maintain that just about any reader seeing HMS in front of a ship's name in English will assume it is a British ship, and the Swedish/Danish etc needs to be inserted to remove this confusion. I agree that the Kaiser's ships predate this convention, but it is better than nothing, though a footnote seems another good solution. Just not HMS by itself, please. The sources I have uniformly leave it as SMS, which also seems OK to me. Rumiton (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Empress of Canada

I tried to convert the shipindex into using {{RMS}} but was reverted at Empress of Canada. Should the shipindex use RMS? Please discuss at Talk:Empress of Canada. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed and page moved to proper name. Brad (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian battlecruiser categories

Category:Battlecruisers of Australia and Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Indefatigable class battlecruisers of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:World War I battlecruisers of Australia have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese twins

Take a look if you would at commons files in commons:Category:Dingyuan class battleship - there seems to be confusion which is Dingyan and which is Zhenyen. Specifically, these two copies of the same pic:

• 
  Dingyen (?)
• 
  Zhenyan (?)

Thanks, NVO (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the bow-scroll, I think it is the Chen Yuen.

• File:Dingyuen7.jpg shows the Ting Yuen's bow scroll.
• File:IJN Chin'en at review.jpg and File:Dingyuen5.jpg show the Chen Yuen's bow scroll. There is a better print of File:Dingyuen5.jpg on page 103 of The Chinese Steam Navy 1862-1945 by Richard NJ Wright.

Examination of photos of other contemporary Chinese warships show that ships did not have identical bow scrolls.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Help stamp out 'as of' dates.

These 'as of' dates are becoming a problem. When applied to a ship that is in active service it can be expected that the ship will remain in service for many years to come. Today's ships have decades of service life and there isn't much reason to expect that it won't. The biggest problem I'm seeing is the 'as of' dates aren't being maintained. I've been catching articles that still have 'as of 2005' on them. Even using the {{as of}} template requires someone to go around updating articles which in my observation isn't being done. {{Ship in active service}} can be used for active ships as its set to change the year automatically but there's something that annoys me about that too. 'as of 2011' seems to imply that in 2012 the ship won't be in service. This project has about 900 articles with outdated 'as of' dates. Brad (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If one uses "as of", then the article is accurate to the date of the as-of, so we know the condition of accuracy. Without it, one does not know how up-to-date the information is. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree; the statement that 'as of 2011' seems to imply that in 2012 the ship won't be in service doesn't make the least bit of sense to me, to be completely honest. It means exactly what it says on the tin: that the information is current as of 2011, no more and no less. This "it isn't broken, but somebody might think it actually means X and therefore we have to fix it" mood is something I've seen popping up elsewhere lately; it seems to be spreading, and that disturbs me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what happens when the last reliable information is that a ship was sold/transferred to the Soviet Union in 1946. Are we to assume the ship is still in service because we don't have any info to say it has been withdrawn from service, or do we state that the ship was in active service "as of 1946"? Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That case could be described by "last reported active in 1946" or something similar. "As of 2005" is better than no indication of date if the article is not being kept up.Dankarl (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from it possibly becoming a cliche, I have no problem with "as of." If it gets repetitive, find another way of saying it. Rumiton (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well.. this conversation has spiraled out of control. What I was proposing is that we find a way to set articles so that they don't suffer from aging when there is no real reason for it to happen. This means using {{Ship in active service}} where |status= in the infobox requires it. Simply typing in Active as of 2011 means that someone has to go around and update it in 2012. The 2005 'as of' that I was referring to are the many articles that were laid down from DANFS in the early days. They have a single sentence at the end saying something like As of 2005 no other ships have been named USS Foo. Those are just silly ways of making an article appear dated. Let's eliminate those at least. Brad (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But if nobody is updating the articles to change 2010 to 2011, the same nobodies will be there to update the articles when the information becomes incorrect. At least in the first case, readers and editors will understand that the information is/may be outdated or incorrect, and may even seek to update it, instead of simply being misled. -- saberwyn 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The year could be made to update by use of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, but doing that risks inaccurate information being shown if circumstances change. The specific example that Brad gives is one I would support. No need to dab where there is nothing to dab to. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point in using {{ships in active service}} as it only means someone will have to monitor the article to correct it when the ship becomes inactive. How is this better than having an "as of" date that may be a couple of years out of date but which is at least an accurate statement? Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. There probably isn't a one size fits all solution here. {{ships in active service}} looks great for articles which have a lot of eyes on them (such as, for instance, ships operated by the Royal Australian Navy) while a manual 'active as of' seems the way to go for less-visited articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The catch is that ships are going to be in active service for a lot more than a year (at least, the navies certainly hope so!). So while it is still likely to go out of date, it's less likely to be out of date than "as of X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another original point of mine that's being overlooked. Typical. Anyway, USS George H.W. Bush was commissioned in 2009 and has an expected service life of 50 years. There is no credible reason the article should be manually updated every year for the next 48 years. Brad (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well maybe we should adopt Nick's suggestion - use "ship in active service" for well maintained pages and "as of" for the others. Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Frigate Bezzavetnyy 811

Today's featured picture File:USS Yorktown collision.jpg shows Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy, but we don't have an article on it. It would be good to have an article for that. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

New project scope page

@ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope. It probably needs more work but it's a good start for now. I've linked it to the main page and the project sidebar. Comments welcome. Brad (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic II (proposed ocean liner)

RMS Titanic II (proposed ocean liner) Here we Go Again. Some things never get old; they just get repeated differently. Brad (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• These are blatant hoaxes by this point, and should really be speedied... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about hoaxes but it wouldn't surprise me if it was coming from people hoping to gain interest and investment in their replica Titanic project. In other words simply advertising. A new Titanic cruise ship has been talked about since the 1997 movie and about 5 or 6 attempts on wp alone. Brad (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! The Magnificent Ed did a snow delete. I didn't even get a chance to stick my fork in it. Brad (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-222

Soviet submarine K-222 has been requested to be renamed Papa class submarine, see Talk:Soviet submarine K-222. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)