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 Chicago (CA-136) talk page templates

USS Chicago (CA-136) was built in Philadelphia and converted into a guided missile cruiser in San Francisco. Three questions about templates on the talk page. First, Pennsylvania is an appropriate template, since the ship was built there, and this is the standard practice with US Navy ships in Wikipedia. Secondly, currently there is a Chicago template, but I would say this should be removed. Very few US Navy ships named for cities or states have a template for their namesakes, unless, of course, they were also built there. Third, in the case of Chicago being rebuilt in San Francisco, there could be a case made to put a California template on the talk page, but I am unsure about that idea.

Please comment on the proper templates for US Navy ships for my guidance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never paid much attention to other projects that decided to tag a ship article. I consider it that project's issue to decide whether or not it should be tagged. If you're determined to solve those problems it would be better answered on the Chicago project page. Brad (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago is just one example among many ship article talk pages I am updating, all of which are ships built in Pennsylvania, so the Chicago project opinion would be useless to me. Perhaps another ship project editor will respond here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that project tagging should be done by someone who is an active member of the particular project. Projects determine their own scope, within reason.Dankarl (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Project tagging can be done by any editor. As long as it's not obviously disruptive tagging there shouldn't be a problem. Whether or not a tag is correct is for members of the particular WP to decide. For instance, Costa Concordia was only tagged with WP:SHIPS this morning. I added WP:SHIPWRECKS (obvious reasons) and WP:ITALY (built there, wrecked there) tags. Both tags are entirely appropriate for the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work Mjroots (talk on Costa Concordia talk page, and I agree with your comments on tagging. I am still looking for guidance on my original three questions above. Note that the questions relate to Military History, Ships, and Pennsylvania, so three projects are involved. I am a member of Pennsylvania project, and for the editing I have done, I could easily be a member of Military History and Ships, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A shufti at the talkpage history shows that the Chicago project was a "refinement" of a Project Illinois tag, the latter having been added by a bot back in '07. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that 'name association' city or state projects should be tagged, because apart from the common name (because the USN had to call it something) and the occasional ceremony recognising the common name, I'd doubt there's much of an association. I'm indifferent on the 'state of construction' issue (if that's standard for USN vessels, may as well keep it up), but I'm not sure if the modification is strong enough reason for a project tag. Apart from construction, I think the only really strong reason to tag a ship with a state/city tag would be if the ship ended up in their boundaries as a museum ship or shipwreck. Mileage may vary disclaimer: I work with Royal Australian Navy ship articles (which usually don't project-tag for builder, and if they did, {{WP Australia}} is already present as the nation-operator). -- saberwyn 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, I add tags for any and all projects regardless of whether or not I'm a member, but I don't assess articles for WikiProjects I'm not a member of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the city/state for which the ship is named is sentimentally attached to the ship, I don't see why it wouldn't fall under the city/state's wikiproject's purview. However, since naval ships serve a country's navy, it should seem to me that the most likely tag would be the country tag. As some project seem to tag namesakes, then that's their decision as well. WPSHIPS isn't the master wikiproject that controls other ones.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I add tags for all applicable projects, but for some projects like MILHIST I leave the class to the members. For ships, I completed hundreds of Pennsylvania built US Navy ship talk pages, adding SHIPWRECK where applicable (a lot of WW II ships were wrecked), and I removed namesake templates a fair number of times, but left some as they were. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Suamico class templates

I always find neat things to fix :) Can anyone help sort out what looks to be like redundant templates here? I'm not sure which one would be more helpful or what corrections they might need. The first one was the most recently created template and looks more comprehensive but has a bad template name. The second one appears to be the original template. Brad (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Template:''Suamico''-class oilers

I'd say keep the first one and just move it. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first template isn't making much sense. It calls itself a Suamico-class template but goes on to list Escambia-class ships as well. (WTF?) Escambia should have its own template, yes? I've yet to figure out why the SE-A3 ships are on that template too. Brad (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. there is one for Escambia Brad (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these oilers are confusing. I found one where two entirely different classes had the same class name and a slightly different ship type (legitimately), and the Indians have one where the same name and type was for two different classes (at different time periods)...auxiliaries are a sure source of gray hairs! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that the creator of the first template may have been trying to eliminate confusion but in that manner only made it worse. Brad (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much settles the question here. The first template above does nothing but repeat three other templates. Add to that its confusing name and listings, I think a deletion nomination is in order. Brad (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

lol.. ok I get it now. Supposedly the Escambia class was considered a subclass of the Suamico class. Yet I only see the Escambia class oiler article claiming They were very similar to the Suamico class (of which they are sometimes accounted a subclass) I'd like to see a more hearty claim than that along with refs. Brad (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Solicitr (talk · contribs) to comment here. The templates were created by that user. If no response soon I'll put the template up for deletion. Brad (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania scholarship deadline Feb. 12 / Ship photos Scan-a-Thon?

Ahoy mates, want to point out that scholarships are available for Wikimania 2012 in Washington, DC, deadline Feb. 12. There are zillions of ship photos (especially warships!) at the nearby National Archives waiting for you to scan them in, so come on down for Wikimania and let's have a nautical Scan-a-thon! Djembayz (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with this! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

S*d the warships, get the cargo ships scanned! Would help but am too far away . Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just come on down, MJ, whenever you get a chance, and same for other WP SHIPS fans! We have a friendly and active group here in DC, you'll enjoy it. There's *plenty* for ship lovers to scan and research here.Djembayz (talk)

SS Port Nicholson sunk 1942

has been in the news recently. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - plenty of info about. Uboat.net, Tyne built ships, Lloyd's Register 1930 (details of refrigeration machinery), Lloyd's Register 1933 (dimensions, engine details etc), Lloyd's Register 1934 (change of Code Letters), BBC story on discovery. I would do it myself but am otherwise engaged at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?58549 Kittybrewster ☎ 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Related to the Port Nicholson is this interesting article - Blue Baron (shipwreck). Given what we know now it would seem the salvage company in question was lying through their teeth for much of what they said at the time, including the identity and location of the shipwreck. Perhaps a merge? Benea (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Personal communication" as a reference

Would someone please look at the last edit of Jeanie Johnston [1] I would explain that <ref>{{Personal communication, Aiseanna Mara Teoranta}}</ref> is not acceptable, but in the light of the reason given for the changes: (I reverted some of user Lugnad's changes, as he or she deleted withouth comment several unfavourable, but researched and sourced facts about the ship. Also fixed some typos.) It might be better received from someone other than I. Just to add, I have no idea what changes of mine are being referred to. Thanks Lugnad (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A "personal communication" is original research and should not be used. Otherwise I believe the last editor was mistaken; I see no evidence that you removed anything. Brad (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

References have to be published and accessible to meet Wikipedia policies (WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:VERIFY). There is no way for others to verify a "Personal communication" to somebody else. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - but - I hoped that someone would explain that to the other editor and remove the original research. Lugnad (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, yes. I tagged the Personal communication "reference" in that article for starters. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta very Lugnad (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam engine indicators - icebreaker Tarmo

Could someone provide me with more information on what exactly these engine indicators of Finnish icebreaker Tarmo (1907) are? Old pressure gauges? MKFI (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They're engine indicators. We used to have a better article on this, but it was deleted. "Dobbie McInnies" is a good search term too.

They measure pressure, but instead of being a simple display gauge they're a recording graph plotter of pressure vs. volume. "Volume" is derived from the piston position - as the cylinder is cylindrical, linear distance moved is proportional to volume. The indicator is a cylindrical drum that has paper wrapped around it. Pressure moves a pen up and down outside the cylinder, linear movement rotates the cylinder and draws the abscissa, the other axis on the graph. For a compound engine, there would be one indicator for each cylinder - they may even be different instruments, with different pressure ranges.

Regular use of indicators was a feature of a well-run engine room, whether it was a ship or a power station. They're of most importance for designing engines and their initial setting of the valvegear, but they also provide an in-service measure of performance and "tuning". This could include detecting, and repairing, errors or mis-adjustments of valve setting. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of Ohio class submarines

Hi, I've nominated List of Ohio class submarines for Featured List status; could anybody with time please comment on the FLC? Thank you --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted category

Category:Maritime incidents in 2012 has just been deleted as a 'G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban'. Given that this category is legitimate, useful, in keeping with our structure, and despite only being February already contained half a dozen articles, can it be recreated? Benea (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It can, and it has been. I've asked the admin to revert all deletions of the category. I understand the reasoning behind the deletion, but the correct course of action here was deletion and re-creation by a non-banned editor. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Anne (ship)

Does anyone with a knowledge of ships captured in 18th century, posssibly idenitfy when Anne was captured? Possibly a Spanish or French vessel known as Luz St Anne or Luz St Anna. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lugnad (talk · contribs) is an expert in that realm - he's on holiday at the moment but says he has some information to add. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will await Lugnad's return. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Even then I may not have any insight as to her history. However Anne is important in the aftermath of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The "convicts" were (mainly) members of the Society of United Irishmen. One of them, Philip Cunningham of Tipperary, went on to lead the Castle Hill convict rebellion. Lugnad (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, a number of ship articles that I have created recently, have links to the rebellion of 1798. I will add the references for further reading. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

News of the paying of salvage money for the 'recapture' of the 'Nostra Senora da Luzet Santa Anna' by the 'Dover and Cecilia transports' was posted on 6 December 1799. That might give some indication of the rough time period. Benea (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks once again to Benea. Newm30 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cornwallis

Could someone advise whether HMS Cornwallis is the Marquis Cornwallis built in 1789, India and around 654 tons? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Colledge, yes, but bm given at 1388, and date of build not given. Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8., p. 80. Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Colledge only confirms that HMS Cornwallis was previously the EIC's Marquis Cornwallis. Winfield has her built c. 1800/1801, but confirms a considerably larger tonnage of 1,387 57/94. An earlier East Indiaman named Marquis Cornwallis, of 654 tons, is listed as in service prior to 1800 however. HMS Cornwallis is therefore not the Marquis Cornwallis of 1789, but a later build of the same name. Benea (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Kablammo and Benea. Much appreciated. Newm30 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

New linear geolocationing system

Over at Wikiproject:Highways we've discovered a nifty way of displaying data onto mapping services that I believe will be a large benefit to your project. By using google earth, qgis, or similar software, you can draw lines onto the globe. These can be saved as a kml file, and the contents of that kml file can be used to, in place of or alongside the current {{coord}} system, display a shape or line on the Earth. I believe this group can benefit greatly from this as it can be used to trace the course of a ship when known or following a disaster.

We're still trying to work out the finer details on how to proceed with this new discovery, so if anybody is interested check out the talk page of WikiProject Highways. Cheers, - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It took a while for me to make heads-or-tails of this. For a concrete example, see Oklahoma_State_Highway_82#External_links and click "view on google maps", for example. Haus^Talk 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the tip about this, I'm not sure it would be the best idea to include this type of thing in ship articles. With a highway, one can point to a map and say for sure that the GPS track aligns with reality. For ships, we would probably only have a handful of coordinates which would not make for an accurate track. The resulting track would be misleading. I hope that makes sense. —Diiscool (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. It was the same idea that the highway project was facing with a single set of coordinates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above, should it ever become viable, should not be used "in place of… the current {{coord}} system", since it offers none of the functionality of that template, for identifying, locating, and producing KML (etc) of points of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Voyages of Christopher Columbus

I think there's some limited use for this type of functionality. No map can ever be fully accurate due to the map–territory relation, and no record of a trip can ever be fully accurate due to the }observer effect, among other things. However maps like the one to the right can sometimes be useful in illustrating a voyage, if the appropriate qualifications are made.

There are a number of places this could be useful that lay just outside of this project's scope, for example Kiel Canal, Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormuz, Panama Canal, etc... Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The observer effect you say? So what was effected by the navigational observations of mariners? When they used the stars to navigate did the action of their observing change the position of the Earth or of the stars? And when they used the Sun to navigate was it the Sun or the Earth which changed their orbit? And if the effect was big enough to mean drawing a line through their journey is impossible then how did they reach their destinations? And of course if every marine voyage should change the orbits of the stars then, with so many individual navigational observations having been made over the last centuries, why aren't all the stars in a different order by now? Weakopedia (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of wandering off topic - it's pretty easy to find and record a good approximation of a position. Finding an exact position or recording an exact position would be a pretty good trick, indeed. Haus^Talk 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet one which mariners, pilots and people walking down the road manage to achieve every day. Have you really misunderstood the idea of the observer effect so much? Navigating a ship is not measured in terms of light wavelengths, it is on a scale that isn't bothered by the observer effect. Defending your misapplication of scientific terms to current arguments is not off topic you know, its how we arrive at consensus and you at an education. Weakopedia (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a position with no error and plot it on a map with no error, I'll happily eat my words. Haus^Talk 18:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll find your position - right in front of the computer. How on earth did you manage to navigate your way back to the same computer since plotting positions is in your mind impossible? But anyway, since you obviously have no clue about the observer effect or the accuracy needed for navigation I shall not bother you any more about it, I am sure you have enough trouble navigating your way through life without any more distractions. Weakopedia (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

It might interest the project that {{Ship infobox request}} has been nominated for merging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the above at the discussion. This template still has a valuable use for this project. More interest in the TfD is needed by project members. Brad (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeanie Deans (ships)

On Jeanie Deans (ships) I'm rather stumped on what to do with this article. It really should be a DAB page but there's other research that has been done on ships that don't currently have their own article. I don't want to just wipe away the research but a DAB page shouldn't have citations and look like an article. Brad (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule which requires an article on multiple ships to become a dab and follow the various strictures that we apply to disambiguation pages? I freely admit that the article looks a slightly awkward, but we have fragments of sourced content (though it could be better sourced) which seem to work well collected together on that page... unless/until somebody decides to delete or to expand into standalone articles, I think it may be better to let the current structure remain. bobrayner (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The page could be tagged with {{shipindex}} with appropriate redlinks created. There are some dablinks which need sorting and a few minor MOS issues, but overall the page is serving a purpose, giving stub quality information on four ships and a shipwreck. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MS/MV Explorer

We now have two similarly titled articles - MS Explorer and MV Explorer - about different ships. In line with WP:NC-S, I propose that MS Explorer becomes a redirect to MV Explorer, which will become a shipindex page. The article currently at MS Explorer is moved to MV Explorer (1969) and the article currently at MV Explorer is moved to MV Explorer (2001). Any objections / better ideas? Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think we should do something for the current prefix chaos — I have received comments about using a wrong prefix (MS instead of MV, or vice versa) in an article, although they mean essentially the same thing. Also, although I have done it as well, it feels stupid when ship articles are created with the prefix although often there is no need to disambiguate the name from non-ship articles. Perhaps we could drop them... Tupsumato (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to drop them. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of personal preference for MV/MS. Not a big problem as the search engine will generally find the ship for you. I'm against the dropping of ship prefixes. It's sometimes useful - SS Foo and MV Foo, for instance. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course prefixes can be useful in many cases, but sometimes you have people debating whether the article title should be MS Oasis of the Seas or MV Oasis of the Seas even though simply Oasis of the Seas would do because there's no article about anything called "Oasis of the Seas" except the ship. Also, prefixes are sometimes used incorrectly for ships that generally don't use them — for example I've seen icebreaker articles with "MS" or "SS" prefix. Also², some tanker articles have "MT" as a prefix while some do not, or use MS/MV instead... There's no order!
Anyway, it's not a major issue, and as we work on new articles, we can always make the decision to not to use a prefix in the article name if there's no "need" to use it. For example the article about Sevmorput has no "NS" prefix as there is only one Sevmorput. Perhaps, once we have covered all ships that have ever been, we can discuss about renaming existing ship articles. Until then it's just a minor issue that can be solved case-by-case basis.
As for your case, I support the MS/MV prefix as there are many things named Explorer out there. If the name was something more special, like Dat explorin' boat, we could do with just the years. Tupsumato (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Explorer (disambiguation) has a section on ships, perhaps the best option would be to just redirect the un-dabbed names there instead of creating a redundant index. If that's what we do, the dab page will of course have to be updated (it only has one of the ships listed currently). Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one think that dropping the prefixes is a terrible idea, prefixes makes it much clearer that we're dealing with ships. As the the MS/MV issue, I personally prefer MS, but don't criticize people who use MV. Manxruler (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the MS/MV (and other prefixes) can be helpful when there are multiple subjects with basically the same name - Explorer is a great example - but they're not true disambiguators as the average reader won't really know the difference or know what to look for (most of all, readers won't know wikipedia's internal naming conventions). So, we still need to pay attention to dab pages and hatnotes &c. It's very easy for a regular editor to think "Well, I know which article goes where"; but the average reader does not. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the prefixes can be useful and I feel that adding the year to the article title is perfectly acceptable. In the case of MV Explorer the ship is consistently called "MV Explorer" throughout the cited literature (except MarineTraffic.com) which leads me to believe that its common name, at least to those responsible for the ship, is MV Explorer. As the creator of the most recent iteration of that article, I apologize for causing any confusion. I thank Mjroots for helping to sort things out and for starting this discussion. —Diiscool (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one welcome our prefix overlordssupport the prefixes as being on the articles (of course there should be redirects from the "simple" titles too!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MS Explorer has an extensive hatnote, about Microsoft products (MS), so if anything, MS Explorer should become a disambiguation page, and not a shipindex; or it should be redirected to the entire Explorer (disambiguation) and not just the ship section. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Tupsumato (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd not forgotten about Microsoft Explorer, that can be covered by a hatnote on the shipindex page in the same way that it is covered in the MS Explorer ship article. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The above proposed moves have been done. I've fixed the major alterations to wikilinks (i.e. those in articles) too. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lexington-class carrier templates

I've started a discussion to delete them and their category at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_11#Lexington-class_carrier_templates as these templates are no longer used in the relevant articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion

It may interest the project that {{Lada class submarine}} has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And {{Ocean Village ships}} Brad (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Ibuki class cruisers

The Ibuki class heavy cruisers were the last cruisers begun by the Imperial Japanese Navy. Two were laid down, but only one was launched and was supposed to be converted into a light aircraft carrier, but construction was halted late in the war. Right now there's a stub for the lead ship that provides data as a cruiser and as a carrier, but I was wondering if it would be better to create a class article separately that would be generally restricted to the design as a cruiser while the existing ship article would briefly cover that info, but go into detail about the carrier conversion. Alternately, we could rename the individual ship article into the class article and cover both in detail. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer your first option, Ibuki class carrier + Ibuki aircraft carrier. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I could see it go either way - I don't generally like articles for unfinished ships when a class article could adequately incorporate the material, but in some cases, especially when the ship was nearly completed, it can be warranted. That may be the case here. I suppose it depends on how long the two articles will be, once finished. For an example, German cruiser Seydlitz follows the former model, for a separate article for the unfinished cruiser conversion and one on the class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:''Suamico''-class oilers

Template:''Suamico''-class oilers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carnival / Fantasy templates

Is there a need for two templates listing the same class and same ships? It would appear that the fantasy class template is not needed considering that the Carnival template is much more complete. Brad (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And now Dream class. Brad (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Dream class

Concordia class.....Pink?! Brad (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT then! Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is what I've been doing quite often recently. Not much sense in correcting colors on a template that has dubious usage. Brad (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've unpinked it. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Destiny class. Brad (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Destiny class

My first reaction is to keep the "Concordia class" template, as it includes Costa Cruises operated ships. The others could probably be safely merged into the overall Carnival template. -- saberwyn 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and there is a need for separate templates. At the moment, there is duplication because the ships are relatively new and in service with Carnival Cruise Line. Thinking longer term, those ships will be sold to different owners, renamed, reflagged etc. Over time, the template would then develop in a similar way to others, such as the Costa Cruise and Seatruck Ships templates. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that the redundant templates will hang around for years because they might be needed then? Not logical. Brad (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - rework the Carnival Cruise Line template to remove the split by ship classes and rework it similar to the Costa Cruises and Seatruck Ships templates. That way, the need for the shipping line and ship class templates is demonstrated. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

MSC / Musica templates

I'm whistling while I work. Brad (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Caribbean template does things right. One template all inclusive. Brad (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is fine all the time that all ships in a particular class are operated by the same operator and still in service. Looking at the Costa Concordia class, already there is a ship out of service and which may be scrapped due to being uneconomic to repair. This is why I think that a template for the operator and a separate template for the individual ship class is justifiable and sustainable. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical tide times

Hi, does anyone have any inkling how to find tide times for Cape Agulhas, South Africa, on 9 March 1766...? No worries if not, but maybe you could point me to someone who does? Thanks. :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cape Agulhas in 1766? Are you writing about the Meermin, by any chance?

There could be two ways of setting about it, in principle; find tide tables (which give a pretty good prediction of tides) or find a record of actual tides (which could vary slightly due to wind &c). The latter is probably a serious challenge; but the former is made much easier by the fact that tide tables were widely published, and you could use a tide table for a different location and then apply a suitable adjustment - unless you need exceptional accuracy. So, the first step is to find an almanac for 1766. No? bobrayner (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha yep! Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic– just, lots going on for me today, including IRL! ;o) Great tip, but, there doesn't seem to be much online that I can get to, any further thoughts…? Although I may be missing something obvious, er, it's happened before! Cheers. :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, this would have been perfect but it was first published in 1766 with tables for 1767. Before Maskelyne became astronomer-royal he produced "The British Mariner's Guide" in 1763 which probably contains tables that we could use for this purpose but I haven't found a copy yet. My Dutch isn't good enough to search for dutch-language almanacs. Perhaps an astronomy geek could use modern tools to hindcast the position of the moon on that date; if that's accurate it should be sufficient to calculate tide times. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that one and thought unprintable things! One year too late… Ok thanks for looking– I tried looking for Dutch but quickly decided it was beyond me, too. I asked about this at WikiProject Moon too, fingers crossed and thanks everso for the thoughts. :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Presuming [2] is accurate...

Begin civil twilight: 04:09

Sunrise: 04:34

Sun transit: 10:51

Sunset: 17:07

End civil twilight: 17:32

Moonset: 15:41 on preceding day

Moonrise: 02:38

Moon transit: 09:32

Moonset: 16:14

Moonrise: 03:49 on following day

Phase of the Moon on 9 March: Waning crescent with 3% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 10 March 1766 at 23:11 Universal Time.

All those are for Cape Agulhas, in Universal Time (UT). bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Top tip - at a given location, the time of HW Springs is the same (at least, during an given epoch) every time it occurs (see Why do Spring High Tides always seem to occur at the same time of day?). Therefore, if your table for 1767 tells you the time of HW Springs for a given period near to your date for 1766, and you know the phase of the moon for the date you want, then you've got a pretty good idea of the 1766 details, if you follow my drift. Be warned about tidal predictions (astronomical should be fine) going back 250 years - the errors could be (probably are) huge. Also be warned that the accuracy of your 1767 tide tables are likely to be poor in any case. Furthermore, be sure you know whether you're in the Gregorian or Julian Calendar. Why, incidentally, do you want to know? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff! I want to know because an expert source leads us to believe that captive Malagasy involved in the Meermin slave mutiny were assisted from ship to shore by Dutch volunteers via a rope at low tide on 9 March 1766. Determining the state of the tide this way for use in the article would be OR; but Pesky is planning to create an illustration of the event which she would release to Commons, she wants to get the time of day right, and that would be fine for the article– I think! :o) Well, are we sure that the accuracy of a 1767 tide table would be poor…? The Dutch seem to have adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century, so I reckon that's ok. Ok, stupid question time– if the above details for Cape Agulhas are correct for [Gregorian] 9 March 1766, when would there have been a low tide in daylight hours…? TBH, thinking about springs is a bit beyond me, but it would be an interesting detail if one occurred on the day. Really grateful for the time and thought! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The tidal regime at Cape Agulhas is semi-diurnal, with a period of about 12.5 hours. There were 12.5 hours of daylight, according to bobraynor, so either the daylight period began and ended with a low tide, or there was one somewhere within the daylight period. Modern tide tables for much of the world (not including Europe, North America and South Africa, by the way) are not great, and all tide tables rely upon accurate observations over a suitable time frame for good accuracy. Having said that, the times of high and low water are quite easy to pin down - it's the heights that are the harder bit. I'd be fairly doubtful about any Dutch tide tables for South Africa in the 18th century - if any exist. I can't see that you've found any yet, just the Nautical Almanac (ie astronomical tables) for 1767. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• 21 March 2012 will have a waning crescent moon illuminated at 2% (ie just like 9 March 1766). Try [3] for a very comprehensive prediction suite. LW on that day will be at 0905 and 2110 (UTC+2). I've no idea what time zone they would have kept at Cape Agulhas in the 18th century, but local noon (ie merpass) would be at about 12:45 (UTC+2), suggesting that LW happens in 2012 at this phase of the moon at about 0830 solar time. All this simply assume that 250 years of precession, and any other long-term effects, can be ignored. I'm reasonably sure that would be a mistake, but I don't have any idea of the size of the potential error. If you can find a single time of high water anywhere in the world for a given date in the 18th century, then we can quantify the error with some certainty, though. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've had a quick look at London Bridge tides, and it seems that in May 1687 HW springs fell at about 15:00 (time zone unknown, but solar time is very close to GMT) - see Tides: a scientific history, by David Edgar Cartwright, p.22. In May 2012 ([4]) HW springs will fall at 1441 GMT. Frankly I'm surprised at just how close these figures are, and while it's hardly a fully justified piece of reasoning, and accepting there may be errors in my method, I'm fairly confident that low water on 9 March 1766 at Cape Agulhas was round about 0830 local. Does that help? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, good going! I've no idea about local time in 1766 either, not sure how one would go about establishing that: presumably it was calculated like navigation, from solar info, e.g. solstice in this instance? (really showing my ignorance of all this now!) Hmm. Looking at this may have been a bad idea for me, a little information being a dangerous thing, ;op but it made me wonder if, from bobrayner's info, there were low tides at about 07:30 & 20:00 on 9 March 1766: now you suggest an hour later! (maybe it's just that I forgot daylight saving, or something? I calculated from a modern timing) Sounds close enough for me, for the purposes of an imaginative illustration? Even if that's an hour or two out either way, it would suggest there was no chance to retrieve the Malagasy from the ship in daylight on the day that they surrendered (9 March), so it would more likely have happened around 09:30 the following morning…? It would've taken a couple of hours maybe, as there were 53 Malagasy to bring ashore. Don't want to speak too soon, but I get the feeling this is close to being wrapped up! :o) Nortonius (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• As for establishing local time, I'd suggest that they waited for the sun to get to the zenith, said "righty ho, then, that's noon" and set the town clock accordingly, when they felt like it. To be honest, that's how the Royal Navy did it (with some more ceremony, obviously) until for at least another century - but there's another story. Such a "local time" would accord closely with solar time, but it's impossible to say exactly how much difference there would be - less than half an hour, maybe much less, in all probability, and changing on a daily basis.
• I'm not completely certain what you did to get 07:30 and 20:00 as times, but if you used UTC data, then these times would be in UTC. My workings give 07:05 UTC and 19:10 UTC. Pretty close.
• Having read the account in Meermin slave mutiny of how the rescue was attempted, I'd say it's just as likely, perhaps more so, that the actual rescue happened at the second low water at 2030 solar time, or about 1915 UTC, by which time it would have been properly dark. Nevertheless, the preparations would have been completed during the day, and the rescue attempted when the tide was right. There doesn't seem to be enough time for the surrender arrangements, the delivery of the news, the worsening of the weather and the preparation of the gear before 08:30. Furthermore, the building of a fire to warm the Malagasy in South Africa in March does rather suggest that it was cold - which fits with it being dark, if you ask me. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is all very interesting! If the low tide times were at the beginning and end of the day, it makes it a bit problematical from an artist's point of view; do I have them starting the rescue early in the day (with a potential early sunlight in the background, behind the ship, as we'd be looking east from Struisbaai), or beginning it in virtual darkness and working into the night (very hard to produce a picture....). If it had been me doing the rescuing, I'd have gone for the morning one, just to ensure that there was sufficient light to complete the procedure. Not easy doing that in darkness, I'd have thought. Warming them at the fire could just as easily be to get over the ship-to-shore immersion in the sea (though early March down in the Cape area is a bit like early September around the UK coast, so not too dreadful, sea-temperature-wise). Without artificial light, of course (no handy Air-Sea Rescue helicopters with floodlights!) it could be pretty darned hard to effect a rescue in the dark. Hmmmm. Having the Meermin against a sunrise (ish) would be good to do from an artistic standpoint; having her against a dark sky would leave us with not a great deal to see. If I hadn't got the rescue picture in my head, I'd just do the ship in any-old-daylight; it's just that the rescue pic would make a really nice one, nobody's done it before (to the best of my knowledge), it actually illustrates a historic event rather than just a historic ship, and so on. I shall have to think! Pesky (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's a tidal range of about 1.3m at the time we're talking about, which means that (for example) you'd be looking at a height of 0.8m at sunset, and 0.4m by LW. If we're to assume that the tidal height itself isn't the issue so much as the reduction in the surf zone caused by the receding tide, then a rescue at sunset may be both theoretically possible and artistically attractive. Good luck ... 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(edit conflict - darn!) The following information is provided for Struisbaai (longitude E34.8, latitude S20.1):

Sunday 9 March 1766	Universal Time + 2h
SUN
Begin civil twilight	05:19
Sunrise	05:42
Sun transit	11:52
Sunset	18:01
End civil twilight	18:23
MOON
Moonset	16:16

Phase of the Moon on 9 March: waning crescent with 3% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 11 March 1766 at 01:11(Universal Time + 2h).

That's the info I got from the one-day site for Struisbaai. Did I do something wrongly? Pesky (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm. Sunset won't work; from Struisbaai we're looking eastwards, into the darkness! Sunrise works ok. Low tide about two to three hours after sunrise will give me the angle of the sunlight, anyway. Pesky (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... These times don't look right, and they don't match bobraynor's, given above, for which sunset would by 17:07 (UTC) or 19:07 (UTC+2). 79.77.226.51 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And on checking, that's because you've got your eastings and southings the wrong way round - S34°.8 E20°.1 (not E34.8 S20.1). 79.77.226.51 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may not be quite finished, we'll see, but I just wanted to say a big thank you for the time, effort and thought that everyone concerned has put into it! :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gah, blech about Eastings and Southings ... I stupidly assumed that Google maps would have them in the usual order when I got them. Anyway, I can kinda "see" where the sun should be relative to the ship and the rescuers, so that's OK. Pesky (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, bother! Except that, in the first / second week of March, it should be darned close to equinoctial timings for sunrise and sunset, surely? Sunrise at 04:anything would indicate a date nearer to December, wouldn't it? Why would it be far off what one would expect? For example, this year sunrise on 9th March will be 06:41 (according to this). Pesky (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it be because SA is UTC + 2 hours, as indicated above? So, SA sunrise on 09.03.2012 at 06:41 SAST (South Africa Standard Time) is at 04:41 UTC…? Nortonius (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. But are we clear about which day the "rescue" happened? I'm inclined to agree with 79.77.226.51's suggestion above that it could have happened around sunset on 9 March…? If so, I see a scene lit from behind by the beautiful, golden rays of sunset!

It's local time, though, that we're looking at; eqinox and thereabouts, sunrise and sunset are around 06:00 and 18:00, local time. 12 hours with sun, 12 hours without it. And remember that Struisbaai faces eastwards, so the sun would be behind the land, and the sunset with it, and we'd be looking eastwards towards the Meermin and the darkness ... and if the low tide were about 08:30 and 20:30, with the sunset version, there would be no sign of it at low tide, it would have gone and we'd be in darkness (antoher reason why I think the morning low-tide would have been a more likely time to effect the retrieval / rescue of the Malagasy). With regard to tides, sunsets and sunrises, it doesn't much matter if it was 9th March or 10th March when they were brought ashore; water and light are similar on all those days around then. Adding: I can't produce a rescue picture in total darkness (other than to do total artistic licence and have nothing but pitch darkness, a few shadowy shapes, and the light of flaming torches here and there, lol!); for a morning rescue at low tide the sun would be about half way up the sky, in the north-east. Though it'sll be behind a cloud, as I'm not good at convincing representations of the sun itself ... Pesky (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, local time around those times for sunrise and sunset. Not sure why sunset's a problem for your painting…? There's loads of over-the-shoulder sunlight e.g. here, imagine the shoreline in the foreground flipped horizontally, and "our ship" where the cliff is…? (and landscape layout instead of portrait, obv!) Thing is, from what 79.77.226.51 says above (if I understand correctly…?) the water wouldn't have been too deep in the "surf zone" for our (ig)noble volunteers who were swimmers anyway, and they had their rope? Wouldn't there have been pressure on to get Malagasy off the ship ASAP, so, go before dark, at lowest possible tide…? According to this calculator (which I think we're probably all familiar with by now lol!), sunset at Struisbaai on 9 March 1766 was at 19:06, really not very much earlier than our guesstimated low tide… Any use, or am I just being annoying? :os Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nortonius, dear heart, remember that you're dealing with an HFA-obsessive here! Does anyone know what height the land is, on that bit of coast ...? How far out would the land-shadow reach? (rofl!) Hmmmm, I think, all things considered, that I;d rather go for the morning one. It gets dark quite quickly after sunset (and that one's before it's set, and looking westwards ...). Pesky (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened to artistic licence, facing east? ;op The lurking HFA in me says sunsetsunsetsunset! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, but ... look at the place by daylight! Wow! Low tide, loads of white sand, bluey-green sea .... just wow! Pesky (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fantastic looking place for such a tragedy– but look, no land shadow at sunset! ;op See you there…? lol Nortonius (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could persuade me that there was any degree of sunlight at all on the scene, at low tide two and a half hours after sunset, possibly ... ;P Pesky (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

But we could meet on the beach a little before the sun goes down, admiring how the falling tide steadily reveals more and more of the shoreline in the shimmering, golden light of early evening…? ;op Nortonius (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if you're paying for our fares and providing the Champagne, m'dear ;P Pesky (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn it– soz, I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth...! ;op Nortonius (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this for an idea? It's getting towards dusk, the preparations for the rescue are almost finished, but the surf is still up and the tide is ebbing. You can see the ship, the rescuers, the Malagasy stuck on the ship and Struisbaai - and you get the tension of "will the rescue work, or will they all die?". A couple of intrepid swimmers are trying their luck, although it's obviously still very rough. Just an idea. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

…but an excellent one, IMHO! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek! I don;t know if I;m up to generating artistic tension in any way which will work at the required distances ... it's not as if I can run it to the theme tune from Jaws, or something. I'm seeing more of the ship, laying slightly over to her port side (she's grounded on a sandbank, remember, and the tide's tight out); a rope, with people swimming and arm-over-arming along it to (and from) the ship; one man reaching up out of the water at the ship end of the rope, to take a Malagasy child from the outstretched arms of another man on the ship, a man fighting his way back trhough the surf (maybe with a wave just broken over him?) with a nother Malagasy child piggy-back on his back ... and enough light to see all this by. I think I can get the idea of drenched rescuers, surf, keeling-over ship, and so on ... anyhoo, that's what I've been "seeing", so far. Pesky (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Pesky, it sounds to me like you've got good ideas right there; and, given the lack of precision in the sources over such things as the time of day vs. the thoughts above on this page, I think you have licence to just represent the event as best you can. I was thinking how the ship being grounded must've added to the general discomfort horror of the situation; and, remember that one of the Meermin's masts was cut down! Annoyingly no-one says which mast, but since this was done to "balance" the ship, I think we're free to assume it was the biggest and heaviest one, nearest the middle of the ship…? Above all, have fun with the picture! :o) Nortonius (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Yes, I "saw" it as being the middle one, as well! I tell you what would be really darned spooky, though ... if she ended up being "found" in the precise location, compared to shore, that I'm seeing her ... Pesky (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[cue Twilight Zone theme] ;o) I've never been on a ship that's become grounded, but I've been on a yacht while she was grounding at sea, it was a truly horrible feeling, and the sense of relief when she came free again was, well, huge... On a (comparatively) big ship like the Meermin would've been a bad place to be, even after grounding; I imagine her lurching around her point(s) of contact with the bottom, as the waves roll in... Nortonius (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have had accidentally grounded smaller craft During a grounding - after the moment of impact - I doubt that most actual forces felt by people aboard the ship would have had greater magnitudes than experienced during normal sailing. When grounded, the ship is no longer free to move with the waves as it once did; solid rock and sand are pretty good dampers. Rather, the ship's movements would have been different. And when you've been aboard a ship for a few days you get used to it; the sudden change in how the ship moves, combined with the knowledge that something is wrong (and the new noises you certainly weren't hearing before), is likely to be quite unsettling even if the forces felt at any moment aren't particularly great. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The infamous experience I have in mind was off the end of Clacton Pier, the water was choppy, the boat was bumping hard on the bottom and being pushed further onto a sandbar, and people on the pier were waving! lol Yes, I expect the Meermin settled into the sandy bottom pdq, since you put it that way; maybe just a weird, occasional rocking, or something…? It's funny getting off a boat after a few days, how the solid ground beneath you becomes all wibbly-wobbly! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I gather they can get some quite impressive surf at Struisbaai, and if the sea was "too rough" for the ship's boat, it would seem to indicate that things might have been a bit rocky. (Sorry about that one.) And if she was on a sandbank, the surf would have been coming up around her there; she wasn't a deep-draught ship, at all, only about 3+ m from keel to waterline, and if she grounded at high tide, and there was a tidal range of 1.3m ... hmmm. And by that point she'd be leaning quite a bit, so the top of the surf would be a bit scary, compared to the edge of the sloping deck. Pesky (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yeah rocky ;op– now I'm swinging around me anchor! eek maths! :os Nortonius (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't even read the word "anchor" now without remembering with a grin just how hard it was to resist putting that one at the end of a line on The Saga ... ;P Pesky (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[thinks: what rhymes with anchor? lulz] I can't forget realising I was looking at a tanker at anchor… These foolish things! :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Krause might rhyme with anchor ... ;P Pesky (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By Jove! So it does...! :o) Nortonius (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Triple TfD nom

I nominated {{Bainbridge class cruiser}}, {{Long Beach class cruiser}}, and {{Truxtun class cruiser}} for deletion. Nomination is here. Brad (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Previously alluded to here, just for info... bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, why don't we merge the class pages into the ship articles? Individual ships don't typically have class articles, unless there were other members cancelled before completion (see for instance HMS Hood (51) and Admiral class battlecruiser). There's no reason for the class articles in these cases. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the merges but I thought there was a lot of disagreement in doing so. I found these three templates because I was looking through ship articles needing references and each of the articles don't have any. Brad (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless there were actually plans to build more than one of these ships, there's no need for separate class article in addition to the ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep the templates, though, with some editing to delete references to the class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Isabella

Hello, I'm looking to start a page on the slave ship Isabella, a British ship responsible for moving slaves in the 17th century. I've already made the page a stub (called The Isabella) but I need some help expanding it. Thanks so much 5hane2012 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)5hane20125hane2012 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If the ship's name was not The Isabella, I would recommend naming the article e.g. "Isabella (slave ship)". Tupsumato (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the ship sailed for over 141 years (1684-1825) as the article says. —Diiscool (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not sailed for 141 years, but in existence for that amount of time. HMS Nile (1839) lasted until 1956, HMS Wellesley (1815) lasted until 1940, and of course HMS Victory, built in 1759, is still with us. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)