Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lou Sander (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 6 May 2021 (→‎Ceremonial ship launching?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconShips Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articlesWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Category:Active ships

Category:Active ships suggests that any ship becoming inactive will be manually removed from the category tree. Isn't it a huge amount of work to keep this up to date and how important is it to have this category tree at all, considering that we also have Category:Ships by year in order to find modern ships? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, maintaining that lot is gonna be hard work, assuming that an editor will actually care enough to keep tabs on all active ships that have an article on Wikipedia. Might be better to lose it, methinks. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I picked at the ships listed in that category a while ago. I think the oldest one I removed was one which had been scrapped in 2012. Given that it won't be maintained, that very few editors would list any active ship in it and that ever ship is either active or not active (which we don't and shouldn't have a category for) I favour losing it too Lyndaship (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of losing it too. It will be impossible to keep it up to date manually. Tupsumato (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from adding ships when they enter service and removing ships when scrapped, there would also be shifting ships between categories when sold between navies or civilian owners. Removal of the category and subcats is the sensible option. "Lists of active ships of [country]" will still be in various categories GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lose it. Who's going to commit to maintaining that? Seems pointless anyway to me. Martocticvs (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you all for your input. The category tree is now at CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic-era French gunboat in Birmingham

Can anyone shed any light on a query at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Napoleonic-era French gunboat in Birmingham about a French "gunboat" said to have been displayed in Birmingham (England) and apparently "dragged" overland to get there? Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for assistance from MILHIST members. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ship mixed with biography. Anyone interested in cleanup?

USS Aphrodite is one for which I added pre-Navy construction background to back in 2014. Since that time a major addition turned the ship article into largely a biographical article properly belonging in the biography Oliver Hazard Payne. There are two problems even with that text being moved there: 1) it is completely unsourced 2) it contains much "flowery" language and praising words not suitable to an encyclopedia. Much has the tone of a praising biography and may be overly extensive direct quote. In my view the questionable material is so intertwined that it is going to need someone with both ship and biography interest to unravel. The other problem is that the DANFS entry contains quite a bit more about naval service than the applicable section in the existing article. I did check to see if any of that "biography" text originated there and it does not. As expected it is a "Naval ship's biography" — not one about Oliver Hazard Payne who is mentioned once. That untangling is not something I am particularly interested in doing and I have no interest in the biography. My inclination would be mass delete, but there may be some good biography that needs saving. Anyone with an interest in both? In doing the division? I have added cleanup tags. If there is no interest I will perhaps take it on at some time but with the qualification that the unsourced biography goes in bloc to a Talk section for preservation if sourced and the remainder is straight ship. Palmeira (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive biographical text added on 13 May 2018 is the same as appears here. This was not the only one which was inappropriately bloated by the same new editor on 13 May 2018. USS Housatonic (SP-1697) has extensive text that also appears here. Both of those were originally written well before the WP articles were posted, but had later revisions, and unfortunately web.archive.org does not have pre-13/5/2018 versions of these to compare). The third was USS President Lincoln (1907), which was quickly identified a copyvio - and then the editor disappeared, at least under that name. Davidships (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) (sorry, not volunteering as I'm well behind in things already committed)[reply]
Yep, he only made a half dozen edits, then booked. Probably best to undo them wholesale, rather then try to pick them apart. (jmho) - wolf 19:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so! Good checking and finding. I'd tried searches on text bits without success. I'd thought perhaps some obscure biographical publication. Seeing it is a genealogy piece, probably self researched and "published," my concern for keeping some whole of that biographical information largely vanishes. Perhaps all true, but of no more use here than my extensive files of findings and personal memories of "my" ships. As I have edited and have a long interest in those ex yacht Section Patrol types I think I can handle a purge, redo of this one sometime soon. Palmeira (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the editor's user page, he's the author of the Coast Artillery Corps site on Rootsweb. His site is the only source I've found for more than the bare facts of existence of the WWI coast artillery regiments, also concisely summarizing the US Army WWI railway artillery programs. Of course, this bio material on persons associated with ships is outside that. He rarely gives any sourcing information, and when he does it's usually a personal recollection/diary/etc. So I'd say his material can be removed. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The yacht was more interesting than many of its sort, going beyond a decline and fading press reports of fabulous folk and social events. Even as a yacht it has some interesting design requirements, reportedly more "seagoing" than "entertainment" with social areas, for its time that will be added. After a bit of time back with the builder/owner the yacht became a Greek vessel and eventually a little cargo/passenger vessel with Hellenic Coast Lines. During the German/Italian invasion of Greece the vessel was bombed by German aircraft and sunk after attempting to beach at Trizonia island in the Gulf of Corinth. The vessel's "life" in Greek waters might be far more interesting than "yachting" in U.S. waters but I expect that history is all Greek to us. Palmeira (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's List

This seems by far the most active of wikiprojects about this topic so if anybody has access to the above publication (Lloyd's List) their contributions would be appreciated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Lloyd's List. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd's Lists from 1741-1826 are available online here. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: It's an article from four days ago so I don't think I'll find that there, hence why I was asking if anybody has access to this specialist ressource :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I see you've already tried. Apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any German speakers here?

If you can speak German to a reasonable level, please head over to our German sister Wikiproject where I have raised an issue at de:Portal Diskussion:Schifffahrt#Cospatrick. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Done. The issue is more complex than what it seems on a first look. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As those nice editors at de-Wiki have said that the conversation can be carried out in English, I'll outline the situation here. The article on Cospatrick stated that she was lost in November 1874. Indeed, that is what can be deduced from a newspaper article which stated that the ship departed from Gravesend for Auckland on 11 September 1874 and was lost the following November. However, the newspaper report was in an 1873 newspaper ("Burning of the Cospatrick". The Standard. No. 15264. London. 1 July 1873. p. 7.). It is obvious that the paper cannot have been reporting events 15-17 months into the future. The only logical explanation is that 1874 is a typo for 1872. There are a number of websites that have repeated the newspaper report, without attributing the source. Thus the discrepancy in dates has remained hidden until I discovered it yesterday. I've corrected the en-Wiki article, but the German one needs to be corrected. My German relies heavily on Google Translate, so I'm not able to do this myself. Please head over to de-Wiki if you want to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you look at the date on the newspaper that you reference, especially fuller report at p.5 (cannot see one on p.7) Davidships (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidships: yes, it was an odd error produced by the search engine. It was showing that the newspaper was dated 1 July 1873, but actually linked to a paper dated 1 January 1875. Another thing that aroused my suspicions was that Cospatrick wasn't showing in any other newspapers in or around July 1873, only that one hit. I'll return the article to its previous state and restore its entry to the correct place in the correct list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might be stating the obvious, but a report also appears in an Australian newspaper dated 31 Dec 1874. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more of the obvious, but there are many newspaper articles on this tragedy to be found in the British Newspaper Archive. These include 425 articles in December 1874 and 1,756 articles in January 1875 (as the fuller accounts of the 3 survivors became available). The official enquiry was in February 1875, and is covered in detail by many newspapers. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to expand the article, there are newspaper archives from Australia, New Zealand and the United States all freely accessible online (links at WP:SHIPS/R. UK newspapers tend to need a free subscription. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that in UK, library card holders generally get free access to online resources such as Gale's 19th century British newspaper archive (which includes The Times from 1785), OED, Oxford National Biography... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I get access. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwritten article on submariners

I just noticed that submariner is still a disambiguation page without any actual article on submarine sailors. It might be an interesting page to write if anyone here is interested. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although submarine#crew is fairly robust, though, so maybe all that needs to happen is for there to be better redirects/pointers to there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to S.S. Bremen

S.S. Bremen

To what might this hymn (words and art by G. Howell-Baker (1871-1919), music by E. Edgar Evans) refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS Bremen (1896) sailed through the site of the Titanic sinking five days after the event. According to our article, the Bremen didn't stop, but it was clearly traumatic for the passengers who lined the decks to see the numerous corpses in the water, including "one woman in a nightdress with a baby clasped closely to her breast". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{ping|Alansplodge}} Thank you. I have added a footnote to that effect (caveatted "possibly related") to Howell-Baker's article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decommissioned ship names

Found among random ship articles (I'm referring mainly to USN ships, I can't speak to other navies), decommissioned ships will sometimes be referred to as "ex-Foo". This is also found in sources, including USN sources. After hunting around through various MOS pages, I couldn't find any mention of this practice for Wikipedia purposes, and only a single mention of it on the page United States Ship. Should this naming practice be clarified, codified and standardized? Thoughts? - wolf 02:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's correct to refer to de-/un-commissioned ships by name, sans prefix. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By and large that seems to be the case. Most decommissioned ships are simply referred to by their name, but there are instances where the "ex-" prefix is used, such as on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), and the navy.mil source on that page uses it as well. There's another example on USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964), which followed it to Self defense test ship. There's other examples as well, but no guidance on how/when & where is should be used, exceptions to said guidance, as well as times where it should not be used. Thanks for the reply. Still looking for more feedback. Cheers - wolf 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Officially the USS is dropped even during long yard periods. The only official continuation of the honorific I know of is in some cases of extremely notable ships, mostly memorials, in "popular" or informal usage. Officially it is not used during any period out of commission — even for long modifications or upgrades during which no commanding officer and crew are assigned for example. Ship Naming in the United States Navy with my emphasis:
  • A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes
The prefix “USS,” meaning “United States Ship,” is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix. Civilian-manned ships of the Military Sealift Command (MSC) are not commissioned ships; their status is “in service,” rather than “in commission.” They are, nonetheless, Navy ships in active national service, and the prefix “USNS” (United States Naval Ship) was adopted to identify them. Other Navy vessels classified as “in service” are simply identified by their name (if any) and hull number, with no prefix.
In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order that established the present usage:
In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters.
─ Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907.
Today's Navy regulations define the classification and status of naval ships and craft:
1. The Chief of Naval Operations shall be responsible for ... the assignment of classification for administrative purposes to water-borne craft and the designation of status for each ship and service craft. ....
2. Commissioned vessels and craft shall be called “United States Ship” or “U.S.S.”
3. Civilian manned ships, of the Military Sealift Command or other commands, designated “active status, in service” shall be called “United States Naval Ship” or “U.S.N.S.”
4. Ships and service craft designated “active status, in service,” except those described by paragraph 3 of this article, shall be referred to by name, when assigned, classification, and hull number (e.g., "HIGH POINT PCH-1" or "YOGN-8").
─ United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406.
Related Resource
A Report on Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy, 2013 [PDF, 0.4 MB]
The misuse of the prefix here on Wikipedia is rampant and, to be blunt, opens the expertise of the coverage of U.S. Navy vessels to question. Attaching "USS" to yard craft for example is ludicrously incorrect, on the level of calling everyone working in the U.S. Capitol Senator or Representative. It demonstrates editors doing so have not done basic homework. For example, the commission conveys certain legal status on a ship regarding armament and rights to challenge other vessels on the open seas in law. Nope, USNS XYZ is limited to some small arms in lockers and doesn't get to challenge civilian or foreign vessels as would a commissioned ship. And yes, it is a "pet peeve" because it perpetuates a mistaken view among those clueless to naval matters. Palmeira (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palmeira: thank you for the very detailed response, but I don't want to get to far of the trail here. I was specifically enquiring about the prefix "ex-" (as in ex-Kitty Hawk). It is used sporadically on various articles here, as well as in both primary and secondary sources, supporting those articles. But there is apparently no guidance on WP regarding it's use. That is what I was looking to have a discussion about. Thanks again. - wolf 14:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but any such discussion needs to address the whole issue of improper usage. The "ex-USS" is indeed used in official sources to address explicitly the fact the ship was once but is no more commissioned. Discussion detached from the strict proper usage is probably somewhat meaningless for anyone unaware of the official policy, particularly those believing every U.S.N. floating object is entitled to the prefix or once granted is always in effect. The Navy is very much a stickler for moments in commission and not in commission as seen in OPNAVINST 171O.7A (Applying even during the acceptance/commissioning ceremony noting it is not a United States Ship until midway, though invitations may use "USS" without periods!). A bit like use of ex-Mrs. XYZ in legal documents after divorce or ex or former Senator for a non sitting Senator the Navy will use ex- to define the former status while honoring that now non applicable status. I think I've seen it most used with wrecks and memorial ships discussed in official documents. That is entirely appropriate, akin to an obit for former or ex Senator XYZ — a recognition of former status without conferring it in the present. While I really disapprove of much misuse here I am comfortable with us of the honorific for ships once in commission as long as any "in service" subsequent service is defined. The "ex-USS" has a more specific place I think in some articles where a ship has gone into other service and mention of its former status is needed. In my view that should be covered in guidance banning blatant misuse of applying to every auxiliary or scow the U.S. Navy owned or operated. Palmeira (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all the additional info. I know there was once an issue with USS being improperly added to some articles, and a few years back I actually did a clean up, renaming USS Foo pages, for ships that weren't actually commissioned. All the USN ships articles should be correct now, with the exception of new ship articles, created while the ships is still being built, but not yet commissioned (PCU ships). But that's at the beginning. I'm looking to address the end; iow ships that have been decommissioned, when should the prefix "ex" be used, and should we create some guidance here. That's what I'm hoping to discuss. Thanks again - wolf 15:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you want to limit the discussion to a specific policy here regarding the "ex-USS" use. I contend that cannot be outside the context of the actual, proper usage of USS. For example an editor still thinking every U.S.N. vessel is "USS" is unlikely to understand why and when the "ex-" is proper. In my experience it would not be used in a single discussion of a ship that was in and out of commission or went from commission to "in service" as either a USNS or just yard or district status. Such a ship would be introduced as USS/U.S.S. XYZ for the commissioned period and then decommissioning noted and thereafter only addressed as XYZ with perhaps a hull ID. Ex-USS XYZ is not necessary. Where the entire subject is about a ship once in commission, but not within the context of the article, one will see "ex-USS XYZ as in the "museum ship, ex-USS XYZ" or the "wreck, ex-USS XYZ". It would also apply to something written about a now foreign, even commercial, ship once a commissioned U.S.N. vessel, as in "BRP ABC, ex-USS XYZ where the XYZ history is not covered in itself. That has particular application to a few articles here.
As for rampant misuse of USS here being over? Just go to the smaller vessels, particularly old patrol and various yard and district type vessels. USS Canonicus (YT-187) is but an introduction to such pages. Unless a type that was re purposed anything with "Y" as first letter of a suffix was rarely commissioned. A few survived into a period when a vastly downsized Navy named and commissioned some of the remnants, but not most. Palmeira (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks again. I should point out that that I'm not seeing a combination of prefixes (such as "ex-USS-Foo") in either WP articles or in sources. Usually only after decommissioning, when the ship is no longer referred to as "USS", do you see the addition of "ex-" (as in, the former USS Foo is now referred to as ex-Foo). - wolf 18:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not recall seeing something as explicit (and odd) as "USS Foo is now referred to as ex-(USS) Foo" (I've inserted USS there as it makes no sense otherwise. There are plenty such cases where the ship's name changed. And it is I expect something you know well, prefixes and suffixes are not part of a ship's name so ole Foo is always Foo regardless of status or designation!) as such in naval professional writing would be teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Those are where I'm most familiar with the use and naval readers generally know precisely what it means. Even there I'd say "ex-" is more commonly seen after decommissioning and the name itself ceases to officially exist. An example is DANFS for Oklahoma (Battleship No. 37) where stripped "she was sold on 5 December 1946 to Moore Dry Dock Co., Oakland, Calif., but while en route from Pearl Harbor to San Francisco, ex-Oklahoma parted her tow lines and sank on 17 May 1947, 540 miles from her destination." The ship was officially an unnamed hulk, no longer even Oklahoma. Note in the previous paragraph and above USS is not an issue because "on 29 December 1941, Oklahoma was placed under the Base Force and placed “in ordinary” [a non-commissioned status]" because commissioned status is mentioned at the start and Navy writers actually don't appear to use USS nearly as much as people outside Navy. As for usage for decommissioned ships still referred to by name alone see "DLA to scrap five warships". The Oklahoma case is what I think the usual here. An article discusses a ship and its commissioning with something such as "commissioned as USS XYZ" and then ignores USS until decommissioned. Only if that hull serving the Navy in another non-commissioned status and retaining the name should an introductory "ex-USS XYZ if the decommissioned status could be misunderstood. For example, if XYZ becomes some sort of yard hulk or similar fate retaining the name then the explicit "no longer USS" format should be used. The other case here I think would be where the article is about a ship sold or loaned to a foreign or commercial entity and reference is made to the U.S.N. status and name without that being included in a bit of history. The same applies to articles about a wreck site or artificial reef or museum/memorial ship where the mention is incidental and should be clear that a currently commissioned ship is not the case. Palmeira (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes have a problem with this as seen in Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57). The fact that a U.S.N. ship may serve in a commissioned and decommissioned status with multiple events and dates is difficult to deal with at best. The use of "in service" there, also seen in the commercial template and in naval templates lying outside the commissioned, recommissioned, decommissioned sequence, indicates that is for operational status without regard to the U.S.N. specific usage of "in service" to designate operational non-commissioned status. Davidships (talk) is right. Ordinary readers, and no few ship editors, are likely to be confused by how the infobox handles a narrative with multiple commissioning and decommissioning with Navy's "to mean operating while using it as intended for U.S.N.S. ships. This brings home how it can confuse. Palmeira (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, if rather dense, illustrates very well the challenges for editors when writing for a general audience in an area where vocabulary can be so specialised, or seemingly familiar every-day language is used in unusual and arcane ways; military organisations - and navies in particular - set great store by maintaining the terms that were developed in the Revolutionary or Napoleonic eras, if not long before. But this is not WP for Admirals, so we have to explain where necessary. Of course each naval ship article cannot contain a glossary, but the adoption of ordinary descriptive language, judicial use of footnotes, and wikilinks could help a lot. For example and taking the question in hand, the ins and outs of commissioning, decommissoning etc could be spelled out better in Ship commissioning, which already has a subsection on US practice.
I don't buy in to the idea that a ship becomes nameless when no longer commissioned, in normal usage the last common name sticks. We don't talk about "the wreckage of the vessel formerly known as Prince. "Ex-" is just a colloquial synonym for "former" and very rarely has any formal status - editors will use those in their ordinary sense as they think fit to indicate something that has changed. I cannot see why it is something that needs to be controlled, codified or, indeed, deprecated.
On infoboxes, they should be kept simple with as little jargon as possible - the beginning and end dates for a ship's commissioned service (or just years) will be enough in most cases, I think - the blow-by-blow detail belongs only in the article (and not in the Lead either). Davidships (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree with the qualification, perhaps quaint, that if Wikipedia pretends to be "encyclopedic" it must deal with facts and not just be a blog or popular article factory. It is encyclopedic, sticking to fact, detail and "education" or it is just another casual popular press or blog thingy. That can be avoided, as you say, with good footnotes and links to accurate articles on "niche" things.
An issue with USS Redpoll (AMS-57) illuminated an issue with the general, commercial and popular usage and the technical U.S.N. use of "in service" that was next to impossible within a single infobox. It was obvious that the general "in service" period included a number of the Navy commissioned/in service periods. The simplest solution I could see was what I did; add an infobox for Sir Horace Lamb (Navy owned but not even Navy named) with footnotes in the YMS-294 /Redpoll box explaining "commissioned" dates were for the first commissioned period of several seen in the text. As for "a ship becomes nameless when no longer commissioned"? No, and again, prefixes and suffixes are not part of a ship's "name. Many a U.S.N. ship retains a name through commissions and "in service" periods and even awaiting scrapping. They do lose the U.S.S. whenever out of commission. A hull will lose the name only when renamed or the name is officially abandoned (not just sricken as some such ships have come back), not infrequently as a new hull takes the name. As to formal status? The fundamental formality is title to the hull and that only changes with formal transfer of title for sale or scrapping or never, as with wrecks. Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects Entitled to Sovereign Immunity notes the legal status of wrecks and page 106 has some to say on the status terms. Palmeira (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an example of a US Navy ship, that is now nameless; HST-2 (formerly USNS Puerto Rico). The ship, acquired from a private ferry service, was first named Alakai. She is still owned by the Navy (MSC), but the name was freed up to to be assigned to USNS Puerto Rico (T-EPF-11), and the ship has since been leased to a private ferry service. It's an aberration, but I thought I'd mention it just the same. - wolf 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting case for several reasons. Directly related is the little bit "U.S. Secretary of the Navy removed the name Puerto Rico from the vessel" — an official, documented act. By Navy standards the vessel did not become "nameless" at all. It became HST-2, something mentioned in the next paragraph with "retain the name HST-2, but the service and vessel would be branded as The CAT". The NHHC naming discussion addresses that. Same as with the little ship that became Redpoll that was originally YMS-294 with that treated in all respects as the name. In checking those out I came across some references needed for that article. The Economic Consequences of Investing in Shipbuilding: Case Studies in the United States and Sweden is interesting. "Austal USA shipbuilding Case Study" starting on page 29 shows the company is now entirely dedicated to naval work and is building the quite similar ten Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs).
A fairly target rich area for both in/out/name change for naval vessels is the period between WW I into the immediate post WW II period with auxiliary and "lesser" combatants (Off hand I do not know of any major combatants in the modern era operating with Navy under another name). That is also a period of frequent status and name changes for vessels in commercial service as shipping lines with hulls allocated from the USSB bloomed, wilted, died and were consumed by new lines. If I recall it is some of those "President" liners that changed so confusingly that I once made a simple spreadsheet to keep track of the hulls and reused names. While many commercial ships stay in service from delivery to boneyard some do not and this period was rich in long layups. The naval vessels had their own commissioned/in service — as the Navy uses the term — and commercial like out of service with layups. Then came the WW II desperate scrounging for any hull that might survive again and there are some downright amazing, even a bit horrifying (some were floating wrecks by then), resurrections and survivals. With regard to my views on the whole commissioned/in service for naval vessels and the confusion with commercial "in service" usage I consider it a bit as if ship people are writing articles about animals and plants only loosely respecting scientific usage of genus and species. One sees lots of loose usage in popular works, newspapers and such, but nothing pretending to be "encyclopedic" should use such things loosely. Palmeira (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, one of the really nice things about ship infoboexen is that they can be easily customized. For how to do that see: Template:Infobox ship begin § Custom fields. So, if you want to intermix variety of decommission/recommission/in service/out of service dates, you might write something like this between the initial |Ship commissioned= and the final |Ship commissioned= parameters in the infobox:
}}
|-
|Decommissioned: || dd Month YYYY
|-
|In service: || dd Month YYYY (as {{ship||Neversink|MTS-123}})
|-
|Out of service: || dd Month YYYY
|-
|Recommissioned: || dd Month YYYY (as {{USS|Sinks-a-lot|SSN-123}})
{{Infobox ship career
| Hide header=yes
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried. A "logical" way resulted in error messages about multiple template calls. Then the "cluttering" effect. I think coverage of those things are better in text with footnote in box. First commissioning is important, though in a few cases a much longer subsequent commissioning might override. Neither did I much like separate history boxes for YMS-294 and Redpoll though in some cases that might be an option. Palmeira (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A "logical" way resulted in error messages about multiple template calls. What does that mean? It doesn't appear that you saved your work so it is not possible to learn what you mean from the article history.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answering and any further discussion at Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57) to avoid more diversion here. Palmeira (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is worth a try with some. I'll see how it works with the operational Navy era in Redpoll with just a few status changes. There will still need to be a note on the significant difference between naval use of "in service" and commercial use of the same term as they really are different. The problem I see is that some ships, particularly commissioned types that go auxiliary, may have so many status changes that the infobox gets really cluttered. Palmeira (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are primarily intended to provide a limited range of key facts that are quickly accessible for those who do not need to search for those detail in the article. I don't think that a plethora of relatively minor detail of a lifetime of ins-and-outs of different commissioned status needs to be included - in most cases the start and end of will be sufficient and, at most, a "see article..." note could be added. To be honest, I am not even sure that some of these temporary changes of status are even significant enough for the article itself - presumably they happen whenever a ship has a routine drydocking, for example.
Apart from this, I think that on the original question concerning names, we should be following the general WP principles of editing for a non-specialist audience - using plain formal language, avoiding jargon where possible and, where not, ensuring it is explained in one way or another for accuracy and clarity. While a ship is in a navy, its name, prefixes etc will of course follow that navy's norms - but if it has passed out of its purview, then its name will be up to others, whether formal or just "common name". (Just for the record, regarding wrecks, formal title to wrecks does sometimes change hands - eg from insurers to salvors/treasure hunters or at auction - and very occasionally new owners change the name.) Thank you all for following up on my Redpoll query - I have learned some Navy things along the way. Davidships (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly those decommissionings for long overhauls should be ignored, beyond perhaps mention of the overhaul if it resulted in a significant change. My preference has been to ignore the in/out, in/out such as Redpoll had except for mention in text with something such as "the ship was in and out of commission and placed in service several times over the period of YYYY to YYYY" with perhaps a footnote about naval "in service" usage to differentiate from the somewhat different commercial use. I also prefer "former" to all the "ex-" that on occassionally finds. I will try as an experiment the format suggested above. I may not "save" that if it looks cluttered. Palmeira (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the principle that if we write "ex-USS Bigship" or "ex-Bigship", "formerly USS Bigship", or "up until 202x, known as USS Bigship" - we write for the reader to give meaning not to follow USN practices. So I could hypothetically write in an article about a waterway that it was temporarily closed on such a date to tow USS Notasbigship to be sunk as a reef even though it hadn't been USS-anything officially for years. The reader will probably understand that it was a naval vessel that is no longer in use and won't think 'why would they sink a vessel still in commission....?' and no point mentioning that it was for a year or so called Hulk No. 1 because that has no relevance to the reader unless it became well-known under that name in the interval between leaving commission and its fate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your waterway example I'd simply write something along the lines of "The waterway was temporarily closed when the decommissioned Navy Notasbigship (linked or footnoted) grounded under tow to the scrapyard" — and definitely not use USS/U.S.S. in any way in that text. The only time I have used "hulk" is as a general term such as "the hulk of the burned out former Bigship" within the Bigship article where decommissioning, strike and sale has been discussed. We can be factual without perpetuating the idiocy of attaching "USS" to everything the Navy has floated. Palmeira (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the waterway example, unless sources actually describe with the navy's official name, in which case I would add a cited ref to a parenthesis "(officially named Hulk No. 1)" or similar. That detail would of course in any case be in the USS Notasbigship article. Davidships (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Repulse article

"Repulse and her consort Prince of Wales were sunk by Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941 when they attempted to intercept landings in British Malaya."

User Sturmvogel_66 keeps insisting using 'consort' in the lead. Consort may be a nautical term for main escort, yet this does not appear in many other ship article leads or history. Why must it appear in HMS Repulse (1916) ?

Is it so significant to point it as a consort? It fails to appear in Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse?

Reply here, no ping please.

BlueD954 (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueD954:, what are you referring to? I just fixed some spacing on the HMS Repulse article, and the word "consort" wasn't there. - wolf 05:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Repulse_(1916)&diff=prev&oldid=1020511258 So obvious.BlueD954 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueD954:, Well, I look at the diff you've listed, and it shows "consort" being added (by someone else), but then in the very next diff you remove it!. So like I said, when I first posted here; I had edited the page and the word wasn't there, and now we know why. What is "so obvious" is that you playing some kind of disruptive game here and wasting people's time. Strange for someone who claims they are "retired" and "no longer edit". - wolf 08:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else? Relevant to the topic?
Why do you think such a narrow minded approach to writing articles is preferred? That no other article you’ve seen uses the word is not a good reason to proscribe its use. Perhaps let someone whose written close to 100 featured articles determine whether a given word is a good choice or not. Parsecboy (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Widely used term for two ships together especially when of similar power, neither of which could be deemed to escorting the other. Just google it Lyndaship 09:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, the OP is aware that we even have a Consort (nautical) article. I strongly suggest BlueD954 find something more productive to do with their time. Parsecboy (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not clear what point BlueD954 is trying to make here. He removed the word from this article, but had just gone on a edit-spree, adding the word to at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 other articles. Is this all just soapboxing to make some kind of a point?? Further, he states he's retired, refuses to respond to any posts, but is busy editing a bunch of tv articles. Isn't some effective talk page engagement required here? - wolf 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth pointing out this thread (and the two related sections immediately below it. It seems pretty POINTy to me, and if it continues, will probably result in a block. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to add they have been blocked as a sock. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant ship flags

A discussion is taking place at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire re flags flown by merchant ships of the British Empire. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal USS Redpoll (AMS-57) to RV Sir Horace Lamb

Rename proposal at Talk:USS Redpoll (AMS-57). The vessel had longer service lastly as the Navy owned vessel assigned to the Bermuda SOFAR station for acoustic research. DANFS and Wikipedia derivatives are the main hits for the mine vessel while Sir Horace Lamb shows up in relation to acoustic research and occassionally other scientific reports after 1959 through its retirement in 1976. In my view the more referenced, longer, more recent history as Sir Horace Lamb warrants a page name change. Palmeira (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to list of ship launches in see also sections

There is a discussion at Talk:GSI_Mariner#Linking_to_list_of_Ship_launches_in_1971 which editors may wish to comment on Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that discussion, I'm bringing this back here for discussion at WP level. Daniel Case made a very good point that I hadn't considered. As a veteran Wikipedian, I'm quite comfortable navigating around the project by various methods apart from wikilinks - categories, navboxes and shortcuts for example. I sometimes forget about a very important part of Wikipedia, the reader, and in particular the reader who is a non-editor.
Daniel said "I mean, why have these list articles at all if you're not going to link to them from the articles listed" and he is right. Ship launch lists (and by extension ship commissioning, decommissioning and shipwreck lists) are all easily findable by navigation from the {{shipevents}} navbox. Ships that were wrecked and have articles are also easily findable via the relevant shipwreck navbox. However, outside these, it seems that there are very few links to these lists from articles.
So, how do we handle this? At the GSI Mariner article, the list of ship launches is linked from a "See also" section. I'm not in favour of that although MOS:SEEALSO seems to allow that. I think that this can be better handled via a link to the relevant list from the relevant parameter in the infobox, so in the case of GSI Mariner, the infobox would say "Launched 1971". To show how this would look if implemented, I've edited the infobox of the RMS Magdalena (1948) article to link to the relevant list of ship launches and shipwrecks. Where a vessel is involved in a number of maritime incidents, these could be linked to the relevant shipwreck lists from the dates in the text.
Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can all mobile users actually see the infobox though? Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that is a good idea. I don't see the relevance of linking to a list of ships launched in the same year at all but this suggestion seems very WP:EASTEREGG to me Lyndaship (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the RMS Magdalena article on my mobile and the infobox is shown. (mobile view) Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On mobile the infobox isn't just the first thing you see, it's the only thing you see first. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship: - the relevance is that they are generally not currently linked from individual ship articles, only from similar lists. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah poor choice of word from me, for relevance read value - why provide a link by any means to a list of other ships which just happened to be launched in the same year as the subject of the article? Lyndaship (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To which one might ask "why not?". I've just noticed that on the mobile view of the RMS Magdalena article, the {{1949 shipwrecks}} navbox isn't shown, nor are the categories. This means that readers using mobile are not getting links to other lists and articles. If a reader looking at that article wants to know what other ships were wrecked in 1949, they wouldn't have been able to find that infomation easily. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lyndaship - adds nothing for the reader to know some container ship was launched the same year as a tugboat. I'm not even sure the purpose of those lists since that information just duplicates the categories at the bottom of the page. Shipwrecks I understand because that needs context as to the nature of the event - all of them were lost in a storm, a battle, etc. A list of ship launches though? Cannot see the purpose of it. I also agree that linking it to a date in the infobox would be an easter egg and that should be avoided. Maybe it can be worked into the prose, in the construction phase, but even there I still think that information is better dealt with by a category. Llammakey (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial ship launching?

Many modern ships are built in sections and welded together. This new method of construction has, I think, changed the whole scheme of launching, christening, etc. I've looked around quite a bit, and have found very little information about these "new ways". It seems like Wikipedia should cover these matters, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't. Who knows enough to take a crack at it? Lou Sander (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=1021837333"