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

Lloyd's List sinks the tradition of calling ships 'she'

I would like to get the opinion of people here, since "She" and "It" are now both accepted to reference a Ship, should Ship Owning Companies wishing to use "It" when talking about their ship on Wiki be allowed to do so?Excerpt from the Article:

SHIPS should no longer be called "she", the industry's newspaper has decreed. Lloyd's List, the 268-year-old publication which claims to be the world's oldest daily newspaper, is to abandon centuries of seafaring tradition

by calling all vessels "it". The reason, explained in yesterday's issue, is to bring the paper "into line with most other reputable international business titles". Julian Bray, the editor, wrote: "The shipping industry does need to move forward if it is not to risk becoming a backwater of international business. I decided that it was time to catch up with the rest of the world, and most other news organisations refer to ships as neuter. "They are maritime real estate. The world moves on. I can see why 'she' would suit a magnificent cruise liner but to a rusting old hulk it could be rather offensive.

Sysgen (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no question about being allowed to; editors just have to respect the choice made by the first editor to use the pronoun. No converting from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the issue arose here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I read this correctly, since we are not the first editors, we are not allowed to change it, right? Can we ask for it to be changed in any way? If the first editor agrees? If he does not agree, what is our recourse? Sysgen (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, there is none. I would caution you to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted, by reading your link I could at least use a "request edit" and hope that the editor agrees, right? That would be an acceptable solution. Sysgen (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the best course of action for you to take. Parsecboy (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So how changing from "She" to "It" would appear as a COI, COI is defined as follows (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.), how can we benefit from these changes? I want to learn. Sysgen (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That was not specifically directed at your request to change "she" to "it" - just a general warning, since you appear to be editing in some sort of official capacity for Fednav. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-15/Op-ed. It's a rather contentious issue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As a side note to WP:NC-SHIPS, what could be a "substantial reason" that would permit changing from one style to another? For example, if a group of articles is covered by a common navigation template (e.g. this one) and it can be reasonably expected that a reader would continue reading from one article to the next one, would it be acceptable to "enforce" a common style to maintain a consistent reading experience? Tupsumato (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any attempt to prevent those who write ship articles and lists to be forced to use "she" or "it" when writing. Lloyds is NOT Wikipedia. It is up to the writer of the article to decide. Most of us use she for ships. If you want to see ships refer to as "it", then write some articles on them. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was mostly concerned about a stray "it" article among all those "she" articles, but in general I agree with you. We shall follow our own established practices which allow both styles and frown upon conversion from one style to another. Tupsumato (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Stray thought: Should there be a template for "She4Ships" and "It4Ships" resp., like the ones for national varieties of English? And what would be an appropriate term to replace "sister ship" – class mate? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No offence to Stephanie from Fednav, or Lloyds, but their policy has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Referring to ships as "she" is an accepted, long-standing practice, not only here in the project, but in the history of the nautical world. I see no need to change it. Those seeking to do so could very well be brushing up with WP:POV. - ^theWOLFchild 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

About SS Pittsburgh

Hello, WikiProject Ships people,
This vessel appears to have had an interesting career. According to the German language Wikipedia article and what I can see in other (mostly unreliable) sources, it was built for the American Line, was operated by the White Star Line and the Red Star Line, and did service with the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine then the RN again. Your thoughts (and references from reliable third-party sources) about this article?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this link works, and you will be able to see Pennland's wartime voyages. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It does, she was also a member of Convoys HX 54, TC 8 and WS 5B. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register entries are linked from here. Mjroots (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for sorting this out so well. pete au aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shirt58: all you need to do now is to incorporate the new material into the article! Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant (1757)

The HMS Brilliant (1757) article is in need of expansion (I'm busy elsewhere). The ship was sold to Sir William James, 1st Baronet and became an East Indiaman, but was wrecked in 1782. Sources available to expand are Eicships, Threedecks and Oceantreasures. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a barnstar in it for someone... Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No barnstar needed. I'll give it a whirl in the next couple of days, but based on those sources only. I have a pretty limited library on the Age of Sail. Llammakey (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Did my best. Needs some fleshing out, but I don't have the sources to do that since those websites really only had the bare bones. Might need a copyedit for any errors or grammatical flow. Llammakey (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looking better now. At least the full history of the ship is now given. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta give credit to Eurylaus who fleshed it out after I was finished and prettied it up. Llammakey (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You added much more of the content than me. Still got a few places to look, like the BNA and sources on Hyde Parker which may have more on his captaincy. Also the service history is presently a list of facts - it needs putting in (appropriately sourced) context. Something for the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Further details of her career might be gleaned from the various editions of Lloyd's List covering her service (Linked from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lloyd's List link wasn't there, though I have now added it to the Newspapers section (at present covers 1741-1825).Davidships (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It was there, under shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

USS Ford

Is USS Ford a legitimate set index? Two of the three entries are partial matches, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

PTMs only apply to disambiguation pages, not set indices. Are these ships ever called "USS Ford"? (such as in the popular press, or by family members, etc) If so, what's the problem? Do we want to hide our ship articles from the readership, like disambiguation pages hide search results from partial matches? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then, should it be formatted like USS Smith, where the partial matches are listed in See also? Or vice versa? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Rename Oscar Wilde

would someone please rename MS Oscar Wilde to MV Oscar Wilde? Lugnad (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnad: - any particular reason, both MS and MV are acceptable prefixes. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on this issue? MS seems to be more popular. the adverts for it use neither. MV is used in official circumstances: such as the company annual report,[1] official enquiries[2] and I assume that the captain[3] knows the name of his ship. Lugnad (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet he also knows that the prefix is not part of the official name of the vessel... Tupsumato (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

MV/MS is very much like she/it for ships. Both are valid, and down to the creator's choice. They are not generally changed without very good reason. Mjroots (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the prefix is not part of the official name. I said "used in official circumstances:" and asked "Do we have a policy on this issue?" Lugnad (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"creator's choice." - thank you for that answer. May I now ask if the text of the article should conform to the article title? It seems sensible that it should. This all arose when another editor, not I, changed every "MS" in the article text to "MV". Should we reverse those changes, so that the article text conforms with the article title. Lugnad (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

-  Done Lugnad is correct. A new IP user recently changed every instance of 'MS' to 'MV' through-out the article. (see here and here) They did not provide a source to support the changes or even an edit summary to explain them. The changes put the body of the article in conflict with the title which can only lead to confusion and therefore serve no real purpose. They were of no benefit to the article and have thus been reverted. - ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what Oscar would make of this? "The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it." Lugnad (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell." - ^theWOLFchild 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

“I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning and took out a comma,” he said.

“And in the afternoon?” she asked.

“In the afternoon,” responded Wilde, “– well, I put it back again.” - - Lugnad (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons named her Oscar Wilde (ship, 1987), no prefix problems at all. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Bertha

Can I ask for some help from the experts here. I've just been reading about (and have started an article in my sandbox with the refs) a historic ship but I really don't know how to describe her:

• Is the term scraper or drag boat or whatever most appropriate? (I've never even heard of a vessel like this before)
• What infobox should I use?
• The gross tonnage is given as 60 but what form of tone/tonne should I use in the convert template?
• I'm reading claims that she is "It is the oldest operational steam vessel in Britain" what sort of verification would be needed for that claim?

Any help/advice or edits would be welcome.— Rod ^talk 21:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a type of dredger, the same principle is widely used today in "plough dredging", where a metal scraper on an A-frame is fixed to the stern of a tug or workboat. Bertha seems to have been often described as a "scraper".

Gross tonnage doesn't have conversions as it is not a measure of weight - it is a formula derived originally from a volumetric measure. Use gross tonnage or gross register tonnage according to your sources. It is always spelled "tons".

I think that the sources you are using are fine for the "oldest..." claim. Davidships (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As modern tonnage is dimensionless, I believe it is incorrect to use "tons" to describe gross or net tonnage. However, I'm fairly certain the vessel in question is measured in register tons, at least in older sources. Tupsumato (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all advice. I've added a few more bits and have some more to do. One last question before I move it into article space - should I call it "SS Bertha" as this seems a bit grand & isn't used in sources? It appears the name was never official just "adopted". The Body book says a similar design to "BD6" which became called "Dragon" which was used in Bristol.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My inclination would be Bertha (drag boat), for what most people would call a boat rather than a ship. Incidentally, having reviewed your sources, I don't think that either "grt" or "gt" can be used as they do not specify what is being spoken of. It could also be displacement (ie weight) or, if it goes back to 1844, Builder's Old Measurement. If it cannot be veried suggest just quote "60 tons" with a footnote that the type of ton is not known. Davidships (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is now at Bertha (drag boat) if anyone would like to review/edit further.— Rod ^talk 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rodw: Late to the party here, but "Drag boat" may not be the best title here - note where Drag boat redirects to! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I hadn't spotted that one - I can't imagine Bertha with hydroplanes, but if we use Bed leveler I think people might be even more confused. What do you suggest?— Rod ^talk 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're using modern terminology, "Bertha (dredge)" might be possible? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Or "Bertha (dredge boat)" or "Bertha (dredge ship)" - ^theWOLFchild 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer the more usual UK usage "Bertha (dredger)" (which sidesteps the ship v. boat question also). Davidships (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sail-plan and sail troubles

Please look at:

• Talk:Sail-plan#Brig and Brigantine
• Talk:Gaff rig#French Interlanguage link

Thank you. --62.19.46.1 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplication?

Could some of you fine editors please take a look at the Degaussing and Deperming pages please? One is entirely about ships, while the other is split between ships and computers. I'm wondering if some re-arrangement, in the way of splitting and merging, might be in order. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

With current contant a merge would indeed seem in order. Typical example of parallel articles based on the word more prevalent to a US and a UK creating editor (though naughty of the former not to have noticed the latter's earlier one since the word "degaussing" was used). Agree with the IP who raised this in 2014 on Talk:Degaussing. Davidships (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Added to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. - ^theWOLFchild 05:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

HMS Integrity

Currently HMS Integrity links to an article that I believe should be HMCS Integrity. The vessel was a New South Wales colonial vessel. I also note a cutter in 1805 and a rescue tug in 1942 were named HMS Integrity. Could someone please advise of any others so named? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why whould the cutter be Canadian? HMCS is a Canadian prefix. Llammakey (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I could create Integrity (1804 cutter) to remove HMCS confusion. See Elizabeth Henrietta (1816 ship). Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Was this a Royal Navy vessel, or a Revenue Service vessel? If the latter, then HMRC Integrity is the correct title. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The vessel appears to be a colonial ship in service with the NSW Government. In certain documents I have seen it reported as HMS but I dont have my reference books at present as they are in storage pending house construction. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Llammakey: - HMCS here would be "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship", which I believe was used at the time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bushranger you are correct, HMCS refers to in this instance to "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship". Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Never heard of that. There's either going to have to be a disambig page or a note on the HMCS page for that prefix now. Llammakey (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Saw that there's already one. Llammakey (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Bushranger. See Her Majesty's Ship, and a well-known example is HMCS Protector of 1884. I have come across a wide range of ships operated by colonial administrations described as "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship" or "HM Colonial Ship" and sometimes abbreviated HMCS - I doubt whether many flew the white ensign. As for the one in question, I cannot find any contemporary references to her as a "ship"; she seems to be universally referred to as "His Majesty's Colonial Cutter Integrity", and it is not clear which ensign she would have flown. (I suppose that "Integrity Cutter 6. In service 1805-9" briefly listed by Colledge is a different vessel, and not for New South Wales as there is no mention in Australian newspapers.) Davidships (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2010 Colledge also includes "Purch. Australia 1805. Listed until 1810." So this was also an Australian vessel, but not the same as the HMS Integrity article given its date of disappearance. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from a source document: "You will embark on board His Majesty's armed Colonial cutter Integrity..." (Gov. King to Lt. Col Paterson. 1/6/1804). Integrity was commanded by a Royal Navy officer but I doubt there was much of a commissioning ceremony. There's no record of her being referred to as "HM Colonial Ship" and she is too small for that appellation anyway, though we could use it as a standardisation of "Colonial cutter" if preferred. HMCS seems fine if we want to differentiate colony-built vessels from British-built ones, though there's plenty of eighteenth century HMS's that were built in the American colonies but don't use HMCS. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the C/Colonial refers specifically to where they were built, but that they were in the service of a colonial administration. (Thanks for the info from the later Colledge on the 1805 cutter - strange that the Sydney papers apparently failed to mention her at all) Davidships (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, HM Colonial Ship was used by ships owned and operated by a colony naval force: most of the Australian examples were purchased from the British. AFAIK, they flew the colony's flag instead of the White Ensign, and if they left local waters, they had to be recommissioned as British Warships (with HMS prefix and white ensign). It may have been an Australian thing: I've never seen the prefix used elsewhere (but on the other hand, I've never really looked). -- saberwyn 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to add an entry to ship prefix for HMCS under the UK then? Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's already noted (with ref) on Her Majesty's Ship and listed on the HMCS disambiguation page. But there's harm in adding it anywhere else UK-related hull codes are listed. - ^theWOLFchild 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

MH370 search finds another 19th century shipwreck

The search for MH370 has found another likely late 19th century shipwreck, 3.7 kilometers down. Stunning photo here (The Guardian).

To my eye it looks somewhat clipperish.

Comparison with Cutty Sark on Google Satellite here (imgur).

Wonder if we'll ever find out what she was.

95.146.115.122 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that - pretty interesting find. But I doubt we'll ever know which ship it is - too many have been lost and nobody's going to fund an expedition to explore it a la Titanic or Bismarck. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Some reports say that it is the barque S.V. Inca, 950 GRT left Callao, west of Lima, en-route to Sydney on 10 March 1911 - Lugnad (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Submarine signalling

I came across submarine signalling in the SS Cap Arcona (1927) article - and found that it is mentioned, unlinked, in many ship articles, but I have found no article explaining what this alternative to radio actually was. Is it hiding in an article somewhere? Davidships (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume that Sonar is intended - - Lugnad (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's for navigation - this is, I think, for communication. Suggested elsewhere that it's Underwater acoustic communication, though that article doesn't really cover this specifically (mind you, I am very out of my technical depth). Davidships (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another stub on a similar topic is Underwater telephone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)