Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

A-Class Review for HMS Belfast (C35) now open.

Hello all, having had an encouraging response both here and at WP:MILHIST, an A-Class review for HMS Belfast is now open. All comments very welcome. IxK85 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser

A proposal has been made to move the page Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser back to Kirov class battlecruiser. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Weapon fit templates

Also, on an unrelated note, can someone look at Template:Type 23 frigate weapon fit and Template:Type 45 weapon fit? I think they may be afd-able, but I would welcome a second opinion on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.187.242 (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When you submit an AFD on these, I will support it.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it - they serve a useful purpose. On what grounds would you submit them for AFD? The T23 one is only used at one page so far, but I see that changing. Shem (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They might make it fractionally easier to update the infobox on related articles but they are easily replaced, I eliminated a similar set of templates from the RN fleet sub articles recently. And there were a lot of similar templates that had been replaced in articles that needed TfD'ing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some positives. With the T45 articles, they maintain a consistent (and correct, or at least verifiable) content to the infoboxes, despite considerable traffic. At the T23 articles they have the potential to do the same (although the one in question is only used once) with some fairly unloved articles. Not really pro or con, just waiting to be convinced ... Shem (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to template this sort of stuff. The info is easily input into the infobox and can be copied over as necessary. They also add a considerable amount of whitespace to the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

USS Kentucky FAR

I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

10.000 Ships by name on Commons

News

"Ships by name"-category reaches 10,000 ships

Commons:Category:Bernisse (ship, 1953) is the 10,000th subcategory. Commons provides consistently named categories with basic information on vessels, many of which don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Several "by" subcategories of Commons:Category:Ships allow to find vessels (and images of vessels) with different criteria.

Participants aim to identify ships by name (10,000 by now), year of completion (86%), by flag, type/function, IMO or ENI, country of construction (43%), etc. The 10,000 categories include ca. 89,000 images and 490 subcategories.

See: Commons:Category:Ships by name. Specialists can help identifying ships via Commons:Category:Unidentified ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Single-ship class articles

What is the guideline regarding single-ship classes? I was under the impression that in most cases, single ship classes are covered on the ship article itself, and generally don't have separate class articles. Are there any accepted exceptions for this? I'm asking because I noticed that there is an article for USS Long Beach (CGN-9), and for Long Beach class cruiser, which doens't appear to have any content deserving of a separate article. Ditto for USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) and Bainbridge class cruiser. - BilCat (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's an actual WP:SHIPS guideline; but WP:NOTABILITY would apply. If the class is notable separately (eg many planned ships, but one built; political controversy), and the single ship was itself notable, then you could have both. In general though, a redirect from one to the other, and a paragraph about the class (in the ship page) or the ship (in the class page) − depending on the relative notability − would be the right thing to do. Shem (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. There might be conceivably be cases where a class has substantial notability above and beyond the single ship, and where there's content you could put in the class article which doesn't really belong in the ship article, but I expect these would be quite unusual. Certainly in the case of Long Beach class cruiser and Bainbridge class cruiser, they're not really serving readers; they're just placeholders in some internal convention. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, generally there's no need for a separate class article when only a single ship was completed/launched/whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

They have their own space-filling templates, too: {{Bainbridge class cruiser}} and {{Long Beach class cruiser}}. Further down the rabbit hole, they have their own categories, too; Category:Bainbridge class cruisers and Category:Long Beach class cruisers. Each category contains the "class" article, the "ship" article, and the template. Further afield, there are other categories for other single-ship classes. Setting up this kind of infrastructure for a single ship seems to be a bit excessive. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other cases where single-ship classes have separate articles:

Mercifully, Enterprise class aircraft carrier is now a redirect (it wasn't always). Presumably there would be more examples if we looked beyond the US navy. bobrayner (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if there were other ships in the class and were canceled (for instance, with the British Admiral class battlecruisers, of which HMS Hood was one), then there should probably be a class article documenting what construction work, etc., was done on the unfinished ships. If there was only one ship ordered, then there should be no class article (see for instance SMS Von der Tann and Von der Tann class battlecruiser: the latter redirects to the former). Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in the case of single-ship classes, the class article should be merged/redirected to the ship article, unless the quantity of information available requires a split/subarticle. I imagine the main occurences of these would be 'unplanned' single-ship classes (multiple ships were ordered, planned, and started but later cancelled) where the content couldn't be neatly wrapped up in a paragraph or two; cases where major mileage can be generated from the design/construction of a 'planned' single-ship class would better be handled under a title like "Construction of HMXS Funngames" -- saberwyn 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

A proposal has been made to move the page Russian aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov back to Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. All interested members are invited to sound off on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have already been resolved in a discussion about a week ago, so I've moved the article back to Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian Navy submarines not lost in accidents

Coming across this, I notice most of them aren't linked. Is there any prospect for them getting their own pages? Anybody want to take that on? (Also posted at WPMILHIST.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the infobox on the class article, added red links and some refs for further use. I've written a stub for AG 11 that can be used as the basis for the rest of the articles if anyone else wants to add to their articles created tally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't given any thought to how it might happen. As mentioned on WPMILHIST, there's one Russian WP page on the subject. With that in mind, can I request one of our Russian-speaking colleagues post a similar request on Russian WP? If the pages don't already exist there, I daresay they'd be welcome, as well as here. (Not to mention the other interesting stuff that might come to light in the process. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Eagle (1918) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Eagle (1918) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-64 (1939)

Hello

I translated German submarine U-64 (1939) to pl.wiki. Problem is that this article is GA on en.wiki, but if you compare part "Service history" with pl:U-64 (1939) then you can see that en.wiki have really small amount of information. I am not sure what are en.wiki rules about old GA - but can some experienced user check that article?

No - I don`t have so high skills in English to translate from pl to en.

PMG (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Linking units

There's a mosnum discussion about which units shouldn't generally be linked. Please comment. Lightmouse (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Breadalbane

I'm looking for exact coordinates for this wreck. I can't find them anywhere. Can someone please help? These guys know: http://www.divingalmanac.com/article.php?article_id=3075, but I can't get the coords off the map. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's 73°44′N 91°55′W / 73.733°N 91.917°W or thereabouts. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So it's embedded in rock. I knew he was a lousy captain, but that's pretty bad. :) Kidding. I think I'm getting pretty close with {{coord|74.696334|N|-91.846962|W}}. Many thanks for the search though. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of world's longest ships

The list of world's longest ships has multiple issues despite being the 18th most popular page of the project. I posted several suggestions for improvements on the article's talk page. If you have time, could you please comment them and perhaps give more ideas how to make the article better? I can implement the changes over time, but you're of course free to participate in the task as well. Tupsumato (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article ~~a bit~~ a lot, moving the list of longest naval ships to a separate article and ditching the individual lists of cargo ships and passenger ships to keep the size of the article reasonable. In addition I only included container ships and oil tankers over 370 m long, other ships over 350 m long and those included in the size comparison picture to keep the size of the list reasonable — I don't think every 330–350 m ship needs to be listed as they are quite common. Finally I added some extra info regarding the size (DWT, GT) and years in operation, and removed builder and owner fields as I did not see them necessary. As for references, I consider Auke's website to be a reliable source for the length and tonnage data for tankers.

Anyway, as before, I invite you to give feedback for the cleanup. If you think I've been too bold, feel free to revert my edit. Tupsumato (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea to change the minimum length from 290m to 350m and delete thousands of entries? Weakopedia (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need "thousands of entries" in the list? After all, there are thousands of ships with the overall length between 290 and 350(/370) metres, but only a handful of ships that are even longer and can really be referred to, as a group, "the world's longest ships". It's the same as with the list of the world's tallest people, which does not include everyone taller than two metres, something most people consider quite tall. Also, at the moment a nearly complete list can be compiled quite easily, but if we use 290 metres as the minimum length, we are only going to have a very long list of some of the ships in the upper segment of the overall length range of the world's ships. Personally I wouldn't call that a list of the world's longest ships.

As for the entries, I split the list of the world's longest naval ships to a separate article because I found that notable enough. For other ship types there are already several lists (e.g. List of the world's largest cruise ships, List of largest container ships) which can be more detailed and have a bigger length/size range. Tupsumato (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. A complete list of 290m+ ships would have been unmanageably long and would probably include a few obscure/non-notable ones. Bearing in mind the many 350m+ ships on order, I think a higher threshold is fine. bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Even in the current list most ships can be considered notable only because of their length — they are just typical run-of-the-mill steam turbine tankers from the 1970s. It wouldn't really hurt if we increased the minimum length to 380 m for tankers and container ships. Perhaps a separate list like the world's largest tankers could include more ULCCs. Tupsumato (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I decided not to use ship classes in the list because in the previous list it seemed that the past editors had simply named a series of ships after the first one. While this is often done in the shipping world, this is not always the case and the use of class name must be verified before ships are bundled under a single class name in our articles. One solution could be to put just a single ship name to the list and then have a separate column for the number of sister ships, a bit like in the old list but without mentioning "class". On the other hand it might be difficult to find out which ships were sister ships — looking at the pictures and making conclusions is probably considered original research... Tupsumato (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also the issue of ship names. I tried to use either the first name (i.e. the name of the ship when it was launched), current name (existing ships) or the name which is best known, but this does not really make any sense. I'm open to suggestions how this could be solved. Since Auke's website has detailed information, we could always list all names and years for each ship, but would it make the list hard to read? Tupsumato (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work. As for the names, I think we can draw a little inspiration from WP:COMMONNAME - see which name is most widely used in sources. Some ships may change name several times in their life and you can't sensibly fit that in a small table, especially when the change of name can go hand in hand with a change in usage, tonnage, and even length. The full biographical detail belongs in an article on that ship. bobrayner (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll check that later. If nothing else, I guess I can always use the name that the ship held for the longest time. Tupsumato (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability guideline question

I just happened on MV Ramsey while doing new-page patrolling: the general notability guideline says that the subject of an article must have been the subject of non-trivial, reliable, third-party coverage. Are there any more specific guidelines for ships and boats? I've tagged the page with a "notability" template, but I'd like to have a bit more information before listing it for deletion, because I'm not well-versed in the subject matter. --Slashme (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The ships meets our general 100'/100 tons threshold. That it needs referencing is not a reason to delete. See WP:SHIPS/AFD for our record on article deletions. I'd wager that this one would survive an AfD. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that we have a guideline saying certain ships are notable on project-specific technical criteria, regardless of what actual sources are available; but as long as that guideline is taken seriously by a sufficient number of wikipedians, there will continue to exist ship articles that can never be adequately sourced simply because sources are lacking and they fall so far short of the GNG. MV Ramsey isn't the worst, though; that detail in the article must have come from somewhere. bobrayner (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The "somewhere" being Clydesite. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The point of the guideline is that for Ships that meet it, adequate sources are likely to exist somewhere - thus meeting the requirements of the GNG - although they may not be in the article yet (I would expect that as a ship built for the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, there would be enough written in WP:RSs to meet GNG, if someone looks hard enough).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any reason for the notability tag to be honest, given current practice on notability for the project. I think the tag should be removed. Benea (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There's not much point to having a guideline which presumes that sources will exist somewhere if an article meets certain technical criteria orthogonal to our sourcing criteria, but which leaves editors to go seek out those sources and to work in line with the GNG anyway. In practice, people actually rely on guidelines like this; the main outcome of is to encourage the creation of articles which pass technical criteria regardless of whether or not they pass the GNG, and of course to support AfD !votes along the lines of:

"KEEP; Doesn't matter if it lacks sources, the ship is over 100 tons so it meets our project guideline".

bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. I don't think we (as a project) have ever said that any ship over the 100t/100' threshold is automatically notable, just that it will probably have some mentions in reliable sources and therefore warrant an article. Perhaps it would be a good idea to explicitly state this somewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We (as a project) may not have said so explicitly, but that notion still gets cited as though it were a real policy. I'll quote a couple of AfDs - one that was deleted and one that was kept, for balance:

To the extent that people treat such a guideline as a substitute for the GNG, the guideline is harmful. Where the guideline is not actually used as a substitute for the GNG, it is merely redundant. I would welcome a clarification which emphasises that the 100/100 idea does not overrule or bypass the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(Although the 100/100 was originally used as a cutoff between "boat" and "ship"; so the guideline is that every ship is notable. It's a simple system, to be sure.) bobrayner (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)When the Project Scope was under discussion we came up with the 100/100. It was not my understanding that this figure would be used for notability. It was only for articles to meet an inclusion for our project banner. Brad (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So to summarise the discussion above (please correct me where I'm wrong): There is a general rule that above 100 feet or 100 tons, a vessel is considered a ship, not a boat, and there's not perfect clarity on whether any ship is automatically notable. Given that, I'd like to see some assertion of notability in the lead paragraph of the article in question (something that distinguishes it from any other cargo ship) before the notability tag is removed, but I'm not planning to nominate it for deletion. --Slashme (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If the source is simply an entry in an indiscriminate database of 22000 ships built on the Clyde, that's not much of a claim to notability, is it? You could find my name in a dozen different databases and directories but I'm not going to get a BLP any time soon. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think limiting the database to vessels built on the Clyde is at least somewhat discriminate :P Parsecboy (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We could use a meaning of "indiscriminate" which excludes that database - and hence also excludes every Yellow Pages in the UK, and the menu in my local restaurant - but it's not a meaning that helps us deal with notability problems.

If an entry in a database of all ships built in a region is a claim to notability, that brings us back to the notion that all ships are notable by definition, just as surely as if we use the definition of a ship (in tons/metres) as a threshold for notability. bobrayner (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This brings to my mind a question: Greek destroyer Lonchi is an article I wrote based largely on an entry in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, which is in my opinion, not all that different than the Clydesite database, other than being a print source from a reliable publisher. If being an entry in a database type work isn't sufficient enough to establish notability. While Lonchi did participate in notable military operations, there are quite more than a few warships that never did, and thus their articles will probably be based almost entirely on these warship database type books. How then should we handle them, given that there is (I think) a rather strong consensus that commissioned warships of at least destroyer-size are inherently notable?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want us to consider all the angles and the possible implications of establishing a firmer notability guideline for the project. Parsecboy (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If there really is a consensus that "commissioned warships of at least destroyer-size" are intrinsically notable, then I would go along with the consensus, as it's a more meaningful distinction than the 100/100 thing, although I would still point out that it's orthogonal to the GNG - so there are likely to be some vessels which pass the "destroyer" benchmark but not the GNG, or vice versa.

However, on other projects I've seen a few project-specific notability arguments which refer to a supposed "consensus" that was actually an earlier AfD outcome, or an essay written by one person, or a couple of project stalwarts chatting on a subpage, or a discussion about something other than notability. I'd like to see the "destroyer" consensus put on a firm footing if it doesn't already have one; maybe an RfC would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The commissioned warship threshold is far smaller than destroyer size, just on sources available to me personally. I'd probably set the bar around 100 tons, which would exclude US PT boats and British MGBs, but I'm sure that somebody would argue that coverage in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, if any, would make the former notable. Merchant shipping is far more questionable, but the World Ship Society publishes histories of various British shipping lines that probably documents their ships in a moderate amount of detail, including, IIRC, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. I'm much more inclined to think a ship in merchant service is notable rather than the odd fishing trawler, even if the latter is larger. So, I'd be perfectly happy if somebody translated all of the warships and merchantmen from the Clydeside database into start-class articles, regardless of size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, there's WP:NORUSH. A good C class article is much better that 10 stubs. Re the GNG, the 100/100 threshold does not override the GNG. It may be that there is not enough information available to write a decent article. I've have this with a few Empire ships where there just hasn't been enough info to substantially expand upon the info in the relevant list. Therefore the article hasn't been created. Should such info become available in the future, the current redirect can easily be converted to a full blown article. AFAIK, Clydesite meets WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I'm feeling that this ship falls under WP:MILL, so I've nominated the article for deletion. Please add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MV_Ramsey --Slashme (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as a speedy keep. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A ship over 100 tons from the days of sail can be considered notable under WP:EVENT, in several senses. First, on the basis of the economic impact of building a ship this size, and the business associated with its voyages. Second, on the basis of WP:GEOSCOPE-- the ability to definitively identify ships with capacity of 100 tons or more can facilitate documentation of topics that involve the relations existing between different geographic areas as well as topics that involve the movement of people or goods. In many cases, large sailing ships with no obviously compelling overall story turn out to have had significant local impact in far-flung places. Third, on the basis of WP:EFFECT, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Movement of goods would typically impact contemporary historical events; in contrast, the movement of people on a 100 ton ship also has a long term impact. WP:EVENT Even hundreds of years later, associating named individuals with named ships remains a significant means of identification and pinpointing their location for genaeological and biographical research. This topic, once hidden in dusty archives, is especially well suited to collaboration in the Wiki format, because the range of potential reliable sources for old sailing ships is way too broad for a complete and exhaustive search by a single individual (even with sources like Lloyd's, Mystic Seaport, and Shipindex.org). The digitization of old newspapers, and of books on sites like Google Books and Hathi Trust now makes it possible to pull out shorter passages and facts on individual ships that were inaccessible in the past. I hope those who want to delete old sailing ships will reconsider! Djembayz (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

NZ newspaper archive

I've only just become aware that the National Library of New Zealand has digitized many New Zealand newspapers from 1868 through 1945. While I've only successfully searched it for references to a couple of British destroyers, it looks to be a good resource for us in general. Check it out: [1]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, worth adding to our resources page? Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, I've added it. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew about those, I've been browsing them for years :)

Many old Australian newspapers have also been digitized at trove.nla.gov.au. A very useful resource. Gatoclass (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Major clean up of hull classifications required.

Hull classification of many U.S. Navy ships on Wikipedia is inaccurate and non-conforming to SECNAVINST 5030.8A or Naval History and Heritage Command's listing for decommissioned ships.

For example, Wikipedia makes constant reference to these classifications of Amphibious Warfare vessels:

LHD = Landing Helicopter Dock

LHA = Landing Helicopter Assault

LPH = Landing Platform Helicopter

This is not accurate. The proper classifications are:

LHD = Amphibious Assault Ship (Multi Purpose)

LHA = Amphibious Assault Ship (General Purpose)

LPH = Amphibious Assault Ship

I realize that these designations are not as obvious to the casual observer as "Landing Platform Helicopter" for LPH, but reference the Naval History and Heritage Command's relevant info: "It is important to understand that hull number letter prefixes are not acronyms, and should not be carelessly treated as abbreviations of ship type classifications. Thus, "DD" does not stand for anything more than "Destroyer". "SS" simply means "Submarine". And "FF", the post-1975 type code for "Frigate", most emphatically is not translated "fast frigate"!." which can be found here: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/usnsh-no.htm

If this mistake occurs on the Amphibs, I'm sure it's been carried over to other classes as well.

Where possible, hull classifications should match with what is published by the respective country's navy, not based on attempts to retcon an acronym based off the letters in the hull classification. While "Landing Platform Helicopter" seems to make logical sense based off of "LPH" and the ship's ability to host helicopter squadrons, I believe the original inclusion of the "H" in LPH is a reference to the ship's 200 bed Hospital overflow ward. I'm still looking for that source info. --Jaiotu (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on Landing Platform Helicopter including about moving to a different title. The problem may be in part that although Landing Platform Helicopter is the article title, the opening sentence is "LPH is the United States Navy hull classification symbol for the amphibious assault ships of the Iwo Jima class and three converted Essex class aircraft carriers." and not (eg) "Landing Platform Helicopter" (abbreviated LPH) is a type of amphibious warfare ship designed to operate helicopters. LPH is the USN hull classification symbol that was used for its "Amphibious Assault Ship"s such as the Iwo Jima class". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article as written is sloppy... it makes the claim that LPH is a USN hull classification while in fact it is a hull classification used by more then one world navy and those navies seem to disagree on the meaning. The real question is how to go about referring to LPH in USN-centric articles. Should wikipedia refer to them as "Landing Platform Helicopter" which seems to be the designation used by NATO, or should it be changed to "Amphibious Assault Ship" which is the preferred term used by the USN? --Jaiotu (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I found a copy of STANAG 1166 MAROPS (EDITION 7) on an Albanian military site. You can access it here.

According to NATO standardization, and LPH is a "Amphibious Assault Ship, Helicopter." --Jaiotu (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that copy of STANAG 1166 - I searched a long time last night and couldn't find one.

I think the best way to address the issue at hand here is to have the articles at the titles of LPH (hull classification symbol), LHA (hull classification symbol), and LHD (hull classification symbol), to be more nuetral to cover all the varying definitions. Also, I doubt we need a separate article for the Hull classification symbol of NATO and the USN, since they are mostly identical, but just point out the differences in the text. I'll raise that at the talk page, and see if we can get a consensus on how best to handle it there. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Row galleys

I've been working on galley for a while. This brought to my attention the article about US "row galleys" and articles on the individual vessels of this type (see Category:United States Navy row galleys). From what I understand of the information in these articles, these are nothing but regular gunboats of the sailing ship era. I haven't seen any draughts or clear depictions, but there doesn't seem to be anything unique about them. They certainly don't show any characteristics that sets them aside from the gunboats of other contemporary navies. Without a serious, referenced description of any unique characteristics, it's questionable whether a North American gunboat term should be kept as a separate article. I would myself prefer a redirect to gunboat combined with the writing up of asection on the US gunboat navies.

That said, I'm wondering whether it's actually within the scope of WP:SHIP to keep articles on individual gunboats like this. Have these vessels actually done anything seriously verifiable and notable that hundreds, if not thousands, of other gunboats haven't?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not wildly knowledgeable on galleys... the term 'row galley' seems like a tautology to me. Galleys are oared vessels; take away the oars, and you don't have a galley any more. Martocticvs (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

When talking about ships, galley does have another meaning too - what would be called a kitchen on land is a galley on a ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a description from a blog of model-makers... "The typical galley had 30 oars — 15 on a side. About 50 feet long, it carried a crew of 50 to 60 men. Each galley was armed with an 18-pounder cannon in the bow, many swivel guns and possibly a carronade aft. They may have also carried a rig for a lateen sail. Although usually described as small, the galleys must have been quite formidable war vessels, especially in the shallow, complex waters of Narragansett Bay." Hmm. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I brought this issue up over at WP:MILHIST and got some good hints on search terms. Authors writing about the US Navy are probably the only ones who accept the term "galley" without question. I have yet to see a modern historian of galleys who would define "row galleys" as actual galleys any more than they would call a gunboat a galiot.

These vessels are galleys by name only. In general, they lack the size and virtually any distinguishing design features that qualify galleys: they have oars, a forward-facing gun and some appear to have had a fore and aft rig. I think some had outriggers, but there any similarities end. The hull shape is completely different, there's no corsia, no rambade, no spur, no distinctive poop deck and the mast placement is very different. According to the sources I found, they seem to have been based on the design of Baltic gunboats (see WP:MILHIST post).

Peter ^Isotalo 08:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AIS data?

Just coming up with a few wild and wonderful ideas... Is there any way we could link to the current location of a ship through the use of AIS data? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Kind of - via mmsi number - but WP:RS is an issue. At best, it's a primary source. At worst - well, in sensitive situations, it's SOP to spoof AIS data. That said, when I want to peek at a ship, I use this service. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is probably something best discussed through a RFC, although I will admit to having added such links in the past – in the external links section. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Items from Independence Seaport Museum to categorize

A few months ago I took dozens of photos in the Independence Seaport Museum, now at commons:Category:Independence Seaport Museum. I categorized most of them, but the paintings (I am sure many cats need refinement). Further, I took photos of descriptions that need to be transferred to primary pictures, and then many of them I am sure could be added to Wikipedia. I am not sure when I'll have time for that, so I am listing this here - perhaps some of you will enjoy this more than I would, and will get around to this sooner :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions are presumably under copyright, probably to the museum, and should not be transferred verbatim nor closely paraphrased. The copyright status of each painting needs to be checked. Dankarl (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

date format for American ships?

What is the preferred date format for US ships? It seems they all use dmy, but this conflicts with wp:TIES. Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the ship was entirely under US service, the mdy is acceptable. Many ships spent their service under a number of different flags. In these cases, its usually down to the preference of the original creator of the article. The main thing is to be consistent throughout the article and not use a mix of dates. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What does the preference of the original creator of the articles matter in the face of larger issues? Smacks of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Anyway, I prefer proper dates and am fine with them as dmy. —Portuguese Man o' War 08:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is quite clear on this: "When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained unless Strong national ties to a topic requires otherwise." This would suggests ships like USS Indiana (BB-1), USS Connecticut (BB-18) or USS Iowa (BB-61) should use mdy and can be changed to do so. I am a supporter of dmy myself (mainly because mdy looks shit), but think we should clearly establish why the MOS is ignored here. For example, one reason would be that the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships uses dmy. Yoenit (talk)

Don't care about the flavour of English; it's 'merican. The dates prolly should be, too, even if they look poor. But I don't see any merit to the "original creator" preference (which is not you, although you seem to have edited those a lot). The original versions use mdy. Anyway, I changed them to mdy because I thought it was the norm, and have changed them back because you're saying dmy is the norm. Wikipedia seems more about squabbling about rules than much else. —Portuguese Man o' War 08:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

dmy is a US Military thing which I've always followed for US Navy ships. I also agree that mdy is shit ;) I don't even use it in daily life. Brad (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the "original creator" thing is more of a pragmatic recognition of existing practice, rather than an iron rule. In other words, "is" rather than "ought". Personally I feel uncomfortable with editors leaving obvious "fingerprints" on articles, as this encyclopædia should reflect what sources say, not the backgrounds or beliefs of individual contributors. bobrayner (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the dates being dmy, and ignoring the idiosyncrasies of the Americans. But it's plain not-on to look to what some random denizen of the internet did long ago to inform what should occur today. Not going to cater to ownership. And don't make my head hurt by linking to Hume; makes me point at first-move advantage, which is what this is really about; Wikipedia is well-known as an online game. —Portuguese Man o' War 09:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its an MMO. As I understand those rules were made because people kept editwarring over english/british spelling articles and this was the most effective method to stop them. However, this is kind of a red herring and not the reason I made this thread. Yoenit (talk)

If wikipedia is an online game, I suspect it's quite like Mornington Crescent. We say there are lots of rules, but... bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got no dog in this, other than being aghast at the regressive deference to whomever got there first and drove a stake in the ground re date format. I expect far too many argue endlessly over shite such as spelling, too; this is all core to Wikipedia's goals, right; squabbling over the deck chairs? —Portuguese Man o' War 09:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates and Wikipedia:Avoid Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect. The sad truth is that we all to often get bogged up in unimportant debates, more often way more trivial and ridiculous than this one. Yoenit (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment I feel we are going off an a tangent here. In my opinion the problem is as follows:

All featured articles about US warships use dmy as do any other ship articles I checked.
The MOS states articles with Strong national ties to a topic (which would include US warships at least) should use that countries date formatting, in this case mdy. It also clearly states this overrides retention of the current system.

Clearly the MOS conflicts with current practice, which is not good and should be resolved. I see two possible solutions:

We change everything to mdy to follow the MOS
The MOS is updated with an example why this does not apply to US warships (if the US military indeed uses dmy as Brad says, that would be a good reason). Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad's right - the US military uses dmy. I've also used it for American warship articles I've written. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems I have been looking at the wrong page, WP:STRONGNAT already names US military articles as exception, so this is resolved. Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref fix needed

I've created the MV Clio article, but the reference "Skipet" is not working! It is in the same format as an identically named ref in the SS Beljeanne article, which is working. No idea why it isn't working. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it, I think. Haus^Talk 08:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS!

Thanks! Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, when you create a new shipindex can you please place {{WikiProject Ships|class=dab}} on the talk page? It would help ease my assessment chores; thanks. Brad (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, will try to remember. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RMS Cedric

The RMS Cedric article is in desparate need of referencing. As an ocean liner, there should be plenty of sources available. Access to The Times archive would probably also be an advantage. Anyone willing to take this article under their wing and expand/improve/ref it? Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fire rooms and engine rooms

There is an article on engine rooms. No article nor redirect on fire rooms which used to be separate in naval ships.

None of these appear to be referenced in cruise ships or military ships (no article on fire room, so it can't be!). So linkage of facts seem to omit propulsion.

It would seem to me that I should be able to look up a particular ship and link back to articles explaining the details of this sort of thing. Right now, this does not seem to be possible. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a fire room the same as a Boiler room (ship)? Perhaps an American-English variant? I ask because the term does not appear in the Oxford Companion To Ships and the Sea, the OED or a number of other reference works I have consulted. Benea (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Boiler room (ship) redirects to Engine room, where it is not mentioned. Nor does the article discuss changes in design as the propulsion machinery changed. If someone has the appropriate reference works an addition here would be useful.Dankarl (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The engine room article is very much a slim overview and unreferenced. I've slipped the phrase "boiler room" in further down, and made passing mention of steam reciprocating machinery for the moment but it needs attention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have the uncomfortable feeling that "fire room" is an obsolete term. I do not know why. Nevertheless, it still should be someplace and the reason for its demise, if that was the case. (Distillate fuel?). I cannot help with the "engine room"/boiler room" questions but feel they are probably the same since there appears to be no differentiation in "rooms" in modern ships. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Boiler room and engine room were separate rooms on old steam ships because boiler rooms were (a)ungodly hot, and (b) dangerous because of the potential of back-flaring from the firebox doors. Unfortunately I do not have a reliable source for this info which I learned by touring a couple old ships and from passing references in sources mostly devoted to other aspects. I seems possible fire room was the same as boiler room, but also possible the term refers to a separate room on some ships intended for even greater containment of the fire box and its gasses and flares. So you have raised a real question here. Where did you see the term?Dankarl (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(od) Seems to have lots of hits at google books. Cheers. Haus^Talk 04:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Later: it looks like there were a few senses of the word. The one prevalent from 1880 or so until the 1920s seems fairly close to "boiler room." Here's a concise explanation: [2]. Cheers. Haus^Talk 05:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, all US (and UK & other) navies had separate fire rooms in larger ships constructed during WWII and "later." The USS Missouri, for example, has 4 fire rooms and 4 engine rooms; each fire room is dedicated to one engine room and one "set" of propulsion forces. References above could serve as a basis for an article but seem a bit dated for upgrades. Older fire rooms were "pressurized" a dangerous procedure necessary to confine the flame to the boiler itself. Later fire rooms did not need this backpressure. The problem was, if you lost "pressure" in the fire room, the flame would blow back resulting in casualties. Student7 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a boiler room, in Shem-speak. And it pre-dated WWII considerably. Shem (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it fire room can refer to two things: The room where the combustables are stored on a fire ship and the boiler room on a steam powered ship. As Shem says, those definitely predate WWII. Yoenit (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to be able to prove it, but very separate and distinct fire rooms were built in ships during WWII and afterwards. Anyway, I was there and saw it. (I realize that observations are not allowable in Wikipedia, but those of you who visit a WWII "museum" ship will find fire rooms there. The USS Missouri in Honolulu, for example). Combining fire room and boiler room into an engine room postdates all of this. There was no confusion at the time! I do not know whether the distinction extended to merchant/passenger ships. It did extend to all armed ships the size of a small destroyer or larger. But not minesweepers or PT boats nor other craft not powered by oil-fired engines (and so maybe not the ubiquitous "Liberty" ships). So we are talking thousands of ships here in the 1940s and 1950s (and probably much earlier from the refs given by other editors above) in the navies of all nations. Student7 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, combining a fire room and a boiler room into an engine room? Are you saying those ships did have separate boiler and fire rooms?Yoenit (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier comment did they have three separate rooms: boiler room, fire room and engine room at the same time? If so, what was the boiler room for? Yoenit (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Student7 in the WWII ships you are familiar with, was the fire-room/engine-room bulkhead effectively an extension of the firebox wall? Was the remainder of the boiler in the engine room or in the fire room or did it have its own compartment? What about when two boilers fed one turbine?Dankarl (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was a bad student! :) I cannot lucidly answer Dankar1s excellent questions. The fire rooms had the boiler (I assume, otherwise no reason for fire!). And yes, the fire rooms were very distinct from engine rooms which contains all the propulsion mechanisms. It was a one-for-one arrangement. USS Missouri had Fire Room #1. Directly aft was Engine Room #1. Directly aft of Engine Room #1, was Fire Room #2, etc. (So this answers Yoenits question: just two "rooms" total). There were no below water-line connections between the two (other than the transmission of steam I suppose). A smaller ship had fewer fire rooms/engine room combinations. A destroyer probably only had two each. I'm guessing that all were not online simultaneously. Like your local electric utility, you needed to have scheduled "down" time for maintenance. (Probably the same today with single rooms BTW).

I am trying to find out the answer separately, but this will not give us an online reference which are few (and sometimes downright antique), being pre-web. We will eventually have to come up with a print reference. Student7 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, I think its safe to say that boiler room and fire room are different terms for the same thing. As such, I'm redirecting fire room to boiler room, although a source or two to back this up in the article would not go amiss. -- saberwyn 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I never heard the term fire room before, after a lot of years at sea on British steam ships, both naval and merchant. It sounds like a dated, US-only term for boiler room. My $0.02. Rumiton (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Started a new article Fire room (overlaid redirect). American article, American terminology. But agree that boiler room is the same and was used informally in US terminology as well. Can't find anyplace when or why they disappeared but assume from the lack of modern references and editors comments here, that they have been engineered back together, which they probably always were on merchant (and other) shipping. Thanks for everyone's help! Student7 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If boiler room is the same, and is the better known term still in common usage, why isn't the article there and fire room a redirect to that? Benea (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am far from an expert, but there is ample use of the term boiler room on US steam vessels (I am most familiar with USRCS and USC&GS) late 19th-early 20 century and the boiler room was at that time separate from the engine room. I suggest fire room may be specifically naval usage. Dankarl (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Retract the above; just checked out Haus's references: "Fire-room, or Stoke-hole. A room or space at the fronts of steam-boilers devoted to the management of the fires, and, generally, to all operations connected with the management of boilers under steam, such as feeding, observing pressures and temperatures, height of water in boilers, degree of saturation of water in boiler, blowing, etc. When the fronts of boilers face amidships, it is a fore-and-aft fire-room, and when they face forward or aft, it is called an athwart-ship fire-room." A Naval encyclopedia, LR Hammersley Co, 1880 (A US publication). The same sense is used in Journal of the Franklin Institute: Volume 59 - Page 132. In other words, the fire room is the part of the boiler room where the crew work, as opposed to that occupied by the boilers. Dankarl (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, in the reading I've done on a wide range of steam-powered warships, I usually see this referred to as a boiler room. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then what we have is an article on boiler rooms, but actually titled fire rooms. This article then needs moving. Fire rooms (as defined above) can either be a subset of this article, or a new article. This really should have been researched a little further before someone attempted to write an article. Benea (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have posted at Talk:Fire room an 1890 specification for airtight fire rooms in a US cruiser. There were 3 fire rooms serving 2 double ended boilers in each of four watertight boiler compartments. Firerooms were pressurized with fans as Student7 mentioned above.Dankarl (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

US naval terminology as of 1942:

Fireroom.-- A compartment containing boilers and the station for "firing" or operating same. Boiler room.-- A compartment containing boilers but not containing station for "firing" or operating the boilers Nomenclature of Naval Vessels, US Navy, 1942

Pocket battleship Deutschland, heavy cruiser Lützow

I was given the opportunity to GA review the article German cruiser Deutschland. During the review cycle the question came to my mind if the current article name is the best choice we have. Deutschland was ordered by the Reichsmarine of the Weimar Republic and classified as a Panzerschiff or pocket battleship. The Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich later reclassified her as a heavy cruiser and renamed her Lützow. Historically she was either Panzerschiff Deutschland or heavy cruiser Lützow but never Panzerschiff Lützow nor heavy cruiser Deutschland. The current article name mixes things up a little and Parsecboy (talk · contribs) suggested raising this question to the greater audience. I would appreciate some feedback on your thoughts. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting into the question of technically proper name vs. most common. And, quite bluntly, the most common name for these ships is pocket battleship and neither of the choices suggested. Most common English-language sources, especially less technical ones or older works, refer to them as pocket battleships. But I try not to get too fussy anymore over technically correct vs most common (and sometimes fail). The important thing is that redirects exist for all reasonable variants.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with "German pocket battleship Deutschland". That seems an appropriate call. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Note duplicate discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Pocket battleship Deutschland, heavy cruiser Lützow.
Peter ^Isotalo 14:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

SS Pontic

I've just de-prodded this stub. SS Nomadic was a similar ship, so the nominator's rationale of "Fails WP:Notability. Non notable utility vessel." doesn't hold water. Obviously, the article needs work, but I feel that this tender is capable of meeting WP:GNG, as it was a ship belonging to the White Star Line. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We should have enough info for at least a start class article, Pontic was scrapped in 1930. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited; how does a notable owner or a notable sister-ship get SS Pontic past the GNG? bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept NOTINHERITED. However, our convention is that ships of 100' length or 100 tons (deliberately vague) should be able to meet GNG and sustain a stand-alone article. Pontic was 394 GRT, and in service with a major shipping line for twenty years, then saw another sixteen years service elsewhere. This WPs AfD record is pretty good when it comes to keeping verifiable vessels. Now, let's see if we can bash some shape into the article! Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've done some bashing. Looks like book sources are the next option for further expansion. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That bit on the date of launch was the only thing I could find in Google Books with a preview - libraries will have to be used for anything else. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait for the AFDs that will result when I start building articles on the little ships that evacuated Allied troops from Dunkirk. HMS Excellent Tender No. 8, here we come! Hopefully, I can make somebody's head explode!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the little ships already have articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi now open

The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Princess Royal (1911) 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) 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Ship launches

I have details of the ship launches for the first two HMS Penzance in 1665 and 1747. Instead of starting new pages for each year would it be better to have the following pages?

List of ship launches in the 17th century
List of ship launches in the 18th century

Quite happy to continue the yearly pages in the present format, if that is what the concensus is but they will only have one ship on each page.

The problem with centuries is the argument about does the century start at '00 or '01? Maybe decades would be better for pre 1801 ships. That way, individual years can be created if and when the situation warrents it. Redirects can be created from the individual year lists to the decade list to enable the use of the navigational templates. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also support by decade: by century would become too unwieldy before you could start splitting it off into year-based lists. -- saberwyn 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it by decade and would prefer starting each at 01. Table or list? I prefer lists as I find it easier and quicker to do. Jowaninpensans (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer lists to tables too, but that is probably a discussion that needs to be had separately. Mjroots (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

From '01 is correct, although you wouldn't know it from all the fuss about the millennium. Shem (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

From '01 is correct for centuries, decades would need to be from 'x0 to 'x9. Mjroots (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

An explanation of your thinking would be useful - why the difference for decades? Shem (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1960s is 1960-69, not 1961-70. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox citations

I brought this issue up on the infobox template talk page, but User:Haus suggested moving the discussion here and pointed out some earlier debates regarding the topic ([3], [4]) that I had missed. I read them though, but while some guidelines regarding the use of inline citations and references in infoboxes were suggested, it does not appear that any of them found their way to the official project guidelines or infobox instructions. Considering the fact that user:Emerson7 keeps moving the inline citations to the "notes" field and not everyone agrees with him (I've recently been working on articles about Tempera and Mastera and noticed him doing some cleanup), I'd say it would be time to conclude the issue with a project guideline, even if it's just "both ways are okay" (although it might not end all edit wars).

Anyway, I have used individual inline citations in the "Career" section and field-specific citations in the "General characteristics" section for pieces of information found from other than "general" sources that I have placed in the caption field. An example of this method can be seen e.g. here, although in that article I've referred to pages in a book instead of websites. I prefer this way as it clearly states where the facts came from instead of forcing the user to read through all bundled references to verify the details. Which way do you prefer?

Earlier I also suggested writing a more detailed manual for the infobox to remove inconsistencies, incorrect use of terms and other issues. If we come up with a guideline regarding the use of inline citations and notes in the infobox, it could become a part of it. Tupsumato (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the cites to the notes field, as on MT Tempera, seems extremely suboptimal. There is no indication what these notes are, what they are meant to be supporting or anything, which surely goes against the whole point of citations. The notes field is for other relevant information about the ship not covered by one of the existing fields, and should not be conflated as an infobox-specific use of the 'notes' section used on articles to display the footnotes. Benea (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The only way I'd support collecting the citations in the Notes field would be if were a statement like "Figures for the ship as built" with a citation that covers all of the material. Otherwise, no one knows what citation is covering what material. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both Benea and Parsecboy. Citations need to be with the information they support. In cases where the infobox is repeating cited information within the body of the article no citation is required anyway. There does seem to be a lack of explanation as to the purposes of the fields so that should be addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think citations are desirable for information in the infobox - especially for basic facts. Otherwise people change them, and we have no idea where this stuff comes from, or whether it is valid.

I agree that if the information is in the article and is cited, then a citation in the infobox might not be essential - but I think it can still be useful.

Citations need to be with the information they support. If they are not, they are nothing.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a basic principle - see WP:INCITE ("The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text-source integrity.") & WP:INTEGRITY ("The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed."). Shem (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References in the infobox make it look cluttered IMHO. Refs should be with the text, as the infobox is supposed to be an overview of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, where the information is cited within the text, then a reference within the infobox is unnecessary. If the infobox contains information not held within the text (and there's no reason this shouldn't happen from time to time - who wants vast tracts of text listing the dimensions?), then it should be referenced in the infobox. In any case, references (where required within the box) should unequivocally appear next the the data, not gathered into the notes section in contradiction to WP:INTEGRITY. Shem (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are almost identical to what Shem has articulated here. I believe this is the third time we've come to the same conclusion. My question is this: how do we avoid repeating this process a fourth time? Haus^Talk 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a FAQ page? If not, perhaps we should, so we can point to it when these perennial issues come up. Parsecboy (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that we have a strong consensus here, this might do in the absence of such a page, unless someone wishes to draft a template documentation for shipinfobox/begin? I note that this debate was started by the actions of the same editor that sparked the two previous queries on the subject. Has User:Emerson7 been made aware of this consensus? He seems to be the only one advocating the outright removal of cites to the 'note' field, which we are now agreed is bad practice. Benea (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I told Emerson7 in this edit, but he blanked his own talkpage, deleting Tupsumato's comments at the same time. I don't think he's keen to engage. Shem (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also been through the ship articles he "cleaned" and put the citations back. Dull work by any stretch of the imagination. Shem (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be the end of it then, with the exception of drafting the guideline. Good work, though I hate to be the one to say you missed a spot! :) Benea (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ben, I'm grateful for the double-check. I've done some dull things on Wikipedia, but trying to manually replace all those citations takes the ship's biscuit. I saw the City of St. Petersburg in the contributions list, but didn't have the heart to check if it was a ship, just in case it was. I'm glad you had the strength of character where I did not! Shem (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If we have a strong consensus regarding the inline citations within the infobox, I propose adding a guideline to the template documentation to put an end to the issue. Perhaps something along these lines could do: "By default, individual inline citations should be provided for all information within the infobox. However, if a common source can be easily identified for the majority of the information, the inline citations to this source can be bundled to avoid clutter. Also, if the information is clearly mentioned and referenced within the body of the article, the inline citations can be omitted in the infobox."

The final text can, of course, be more detailed. This would leave us to decide where the citations should be bundled (for example I have used the "caption" field for general characteristics since it does not increase the length of the infobox). Also, perhaps we should also say something about the use of the "notes" field (e.g. what User:Benea said at 17:42)? Tupsumato (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By default, individual inline citations should be provided for all information within the infobox

Sorry, but unless I've missed something, that's not what consensus is at all. Consensus is that infoboxes don't need to contain cites at all as long as the same info is cited in main body text. In those rare cases where some content might appear in the infobox that is not duplicated in the prose portion of the article, an inline cite can then be used directly after the relevant info in the infobox. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gato - the infobox should be treated identically to the lead section: if the material is repeated and cited properly in the body of the text, citations are unnecessary. This is standard practice at least for warship articles rated as GA or higher. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Page merge request

I tried to move Talk:Halve Maen (ship) to Talk:Halve Maen but couldn't. I guess an admin needs to merge page histories. The main article is at Halve Maen. Looks like there has been multiple moves for this ship in the past. Brad (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming

Notifying the project that a number of Royal Navy categories are proposed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2#Royal Navy categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Height of Valemax vessels

I am having a minor problem with User:Superfast1111 who keeps changing the height of the ships in articles about the Vale Brasil and the Valemax VLOCs from 56 to 66.67 meters without providing a source for the new figure. The old height is taken from the shipping company's interactive presentation while the new figure is apparently based on Superfast1111's personal experiences aboard the Vale Brasil (see my talk page for our recent discussion). I'm afraid that I'm being dragged to an edit war, so could some of the more experienced editors lend a hand to solve this issue? Tupsumato (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

It is not my APPARENT experience, it is my ACTUAL experience. I have taken the vessel out of the shipyard & have served onboard it so my knowledge about its dimensions is much more reliable. I have no interest in any war but accurate information. Besides as Wikipedia says if you don't like your articles being edited, DONT WRITE THEM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfast1111 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia also says that information must be verifiable (per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy) to reliable, published sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more info), and that the criteria for inclusion "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability, emphasis Wikipedia's). Unfortunately, personal experience, while quite possibly correct, does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable, published source, and while Superfast's personal experience may be correct, Wikipedia can't accept it until such a source can be provided. It may be that as this ship has only just entered service, changes may have been made during construction, and the website's technical data may not have been updated from design values to construction values. It may also be that the website Tupsumato is referring to, which states "56 meters to mast", and Superfast's personal experience of 66.67 metres are both correct, with the website measuring to a non-keel point. In both cases, the solution is to find a more up-to-date resource that gives the corrected information. -- saberwyn 10:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The figure given by Vale, 56 m, might be the maximum air draft in ballast condition — assuming Superfast1111's figure would be the correct keel-to-mast height, that would leave some ten meters for ballast draft, which sounds reasonable for a ship of that size. However, until a reliable source can be found for the height, should we just omit the information regarding the vertical dimensions of the vessels? I would not want to make the article more vague by just speaking about "height" without specifying how it is measured. Tupsumato (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Romu, i agree with Saberwyn that the initial design & final output could be very well be different. On another note, having served on the world's largest ore carrier i would say your article is very well written except for the 'keel to highest point' & the summer draft is 23.023m. I do have a copy of the ships particulars but my employment contract & copyright rules prohibit me from publically sharing it. However i do have some personal photos that i wanted to post so that your mind may be put at some ease but am having trouble doing so. Could i send them to you & perhaps you could post them or i would appreciate you giving me a step by step process that would help me do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfast1111 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we remove the information about the ship's height until it can be verified from a reliable public source. The problem is not your credibility or my stubbornness, but the fact that all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. It's one of the key points of the free encyclopedia and we have to stick to that whether we liked it or not. As for the draft, I think it can be rounded to 23 m especially when both DNV's database entry and the copy of ship's particulars I have been using give the same figure. Tupsumato (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the height information for now. I think we could use another opinion before continuing. Tupsumato (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As for uploading your own photographs, you should use the Wikimedia Commons. It is probably available in your native language — check the links in the bottom of the page. The process is quite straightforward — choose files, select suitable free license, fill in description etc. and click OK. For including images in articles you can find instructions here or just see how it has been done in some existing articles. Unfortunately I can not do it for you because of copyright reasons — the process would be even more complicated. Tupsumato (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have re-checked my copy of the ships's particulars & realized why you were getting 56m. The height of the vessel from the keel to the bridge of the vessel is 54.98m. The keel to mast height is 66.67m. I took a look at the particulars you were using & missed the keel to the highest point section. This copy in any case was a very early 1st copy that was used before we could use all the drawings that the shipyard supplied upon delivery & complied a properly verified particulars list which i can e-mail to you so that you can see for your self what i am talking about.I guess you can re-add the height section as soon as you have the mail.Guess our disagreement has been duly & properly resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfast1111 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not e-mail me the main particulars document if it is, as you said, against your contract and company policy. While I might look like an innocent Wikipedia editor, I am already affiliated with the shipbuilding industry, so you should not share any detailed information with me if it has not been made public by your employer. Also, if someone else wants to verify the height of the Vale Brasil, he or she should also have access to the document as well, which basically necessitates that it has to be public. However, now that I know the actual figure, I will keep an eye on the future news articles about the Valemax ships. I am sure it will come up eventually when someone writes a detailed article about the vessels and I will add it back to the article then.

I also think that our disagreement has been more or less resolved and want to wish you happy editing in Wikipedia! Tupsumato (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it has already been made public, the copy of the ship particulars you have referred to is signed(no less) by the Master of the vessel. I do recognize the signature of my Master. In any case it is just for your reference. I can give you by private e-mail the contact details of the Superintendent who is handling the vessel. I am quite certain he would help you out. Superfast1111 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Eagle (1918) 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) 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Book reports

BTW, if you haven't noticed, the book reports for Wikipedia books have been extensively tweaked to help editors assess and cleanup articles. See for example Book talk:Iowa class battleships#Book report. Features include breakdowns of article assessments, lists of cleanup tags found in the article, lists of non-free media, and a bunch of links to tools likes the external links inspector or the disambiguation fixer. Those are automatically updated by User:NoomBot every few days. Many books are created at WP:FTC, but you don't need to way until then to gain their benefits. Just thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Request info from Mirimar

Would someone be able to provide me with a copy of the Mirimar ship database info for Mercardian Queen II (aka HMNZS Charles Upham, IMO 8131128)? Thanks in advance! -- saberwyn 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave up on Miramar when it went commercial, but unless I'm missing something, the ship seems to be an Indonesian car carrier at the moment: "Nusantara Sejati (8131128)". Equasis. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. Retrieved 2011-10-10.. Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Defence (1907)

GA without a picture top right. >100 years old. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures aren't required for GA, just recommended. So find one and add it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help. I found one and some editor removed it because I couldn't prove it was 100 years old. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Then use a fair-use template if you can't document the origin of the photo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Would [5] help? I think it should be Crown Copyright, from 1916 or earlier. Dankarl (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are already three pictures on on Commons, one of which is used in the article. I'll sort out the article. Shem (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Would the article benefit from having a picture of Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially an image reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, as well as anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos to the NRHP county lists of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites that include ships and ship-wrecks." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for Infobox ship

I'm in the process of generating a full set of instructions/explanations for the various fields in {{Infobox ship}} and its components. The draft space is at User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox Ship For Dummies. Feel free to help, either by making direct changes, or leaving suggestions in the draft or on the associated talkpage. -- saberwyn 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, could we not embed the stupid {| and |} in the infobox, rather than have to put those manually in every article? [This would require bot-assisted cleanup, but that would be pretty easy to do]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain. Brad (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

E.g in Cöln class cruiser, the template starts as

{|{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
 ...
}}
|}

Ideally, this should be

{{Infobox Ship Begin}}
{{Infobox Ship Image
 ...
}}
{{Infobox Ship End}}

With {{Infobox Ship Begin}} having that initial {| and {{Infobox Ship End}} having that final |}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That won't work because of the way the templates nest, I think. {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} etc. have the same issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tonnage issues

I was a bit bold with the tonnage articles and templates today. I wrote net register tonnage and created {{NRT}} as the former previously redirected to tonnage and the latter is needed as a companion for {{GRT}}. In addition I corrected factual errors in net tonnage which basically described NRT in the lead section. However, I also went through {{GT}} and {{NetT}}, adding strikethroughs to several parameters that, when used, spell the tonnage out in "tons". This is obviously incorrect as both gross and net tonnages are dimensionless/unitless indices calculated with a mathematical formula. Thus first=yes and first=caps should not be used in future articles — hence the striking.

Of course, being a reasonable editor, I did not touch the templates as it would have affected a large number of articles. However, the documentation can not be left as it is now for ever, so either we should edit the existing parameters so that they do not spell out "tons" (and hope that not many articles are affected in a negative way) or add completely new parameters that denote the tonnage correctly (e.g. "Gross tonnage (GT) of 36,000"), remove the old ones from the documentation and then fix the incorrect notation when encountered (or perhaps with the AWB — I'm not experienced with that so I don't know how it works). Tupsumato (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for adequate ship's image

While rewriting the John Rodgers page and noting in the article that his son, John Rodgers, Jr., served aboard the USS Concord of 1828, I came to find out that there was no page for this vessel when I attempted to link to it, so I ended up creating the page just so it wouldn't appear as a red link in the JR article. One thing led to another and now I'm pretty involved with expanding the page. However, I have only been able to find information in an indirect manner, as there doesn't seem to be a dedicated book about the ship, or any book that covers it well for that matter, leastwise an image for it. The Concord is a Sloop of war, of 700 tons so I used an image from another (sister) sloop of war with a note in the caption saying so, but was informed by another user that the image of the SOW I used was of a vessel with almost twice the tonnage as that of the Concord built in 1828. (yikes!) So I looked to other articles of SOW's and came across a couple whose tonnage, length, beam and draft are identical to that of Concord's. I have made a comparison chart of the vessel's characteristics on the Concord's talk page, inquiring as to which vessel's image would be best suited for this new article. If anyone with knowledge in this area can help, would you please leave input on the talk page there? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Category for deletion

I have proposed Category:Ships with ice classification and its subcategories for deletion due to WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#TRIVIA — see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 30#Category:Ships with ice classification for more detailed rationale. Your input is welcome. Tupsumato (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposal for deletion of the category has been relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 12#Category:Ships with ice classification. Please participate in the discussion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The category has been deleted. Tupsumato (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Project page deletions

These were only needed for a cleanup bot that no longer runs. No sense in keeping them unless for historical reasons. There's a new cleanup bot on the tool server anyway. Brad (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Vanguard (23) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship losses

Please can we ensure that all ships that are lost, through accident or enemy action, are added to the relevant year's list of shipwrecks and the relevant year category for maritime incidents. Thus a ship lost in 2011 would have an entry in the List of shipwrecks in 2011 and be categorised in Category:Maritime incidents in 2011. If there is no list, the ship should be categorised, to allow easier creation of the list in future. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of shipwrecks, I have long wondered about one thing, and this is probably the correct forum to enquire. Is a ship really shipwrecked when it is captured by an enemy? I mean, captured vessels are still (often at least) fully afloat, just with new owners. For examples of what I'm talking about, see Blankenberg, Alster, Friesland and Nordland in List of shipwrecks in April 1940. I guess that "all ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost" could allow for captured ships, but according to Wiktionary a shipwreck is: "1. A boat that has sunk or run aground so that it is no longer seaworthy. 2. An event where a ship sinks or runs aground."

This doesn't seem to make room for captured ships as shipwrecks, unless said vessels are sunk or ran aground and made unseaworthy.

What is the official policy? I personally think that only ships that sink or runs aground (seriously enough to make them unseaworthy) belongs on the shipwreck list. Or should we make our own definitions and declare captured vessels to be shipwrecks? Manxruler (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Captured ships are never in my experience considered shipwrecks, and wikipedia should not take the lead in coming up with its own definition. I'm not sure how those ships found their way into that list, but they should unquestionably be removed. Benea (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds logical. I seem to recall seeing more captured ships in other shipwreck lists too, although I can't remember which years were involved. Manxruler (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Benea and Manx' -- Isn't there simply a category for 'Captured ships' (by year)? Indeed a captured ship can be used again, unlike a ship that has been wrecked (despite any freak exceptions that may exist). There are boarderline cases also, as with USS Concord (1828) which ran aground on a sandbar and couldn't be refloated. The ship was not 'wrecked' but simply abandoned. Presently that page has been categorized with Shipwrecks in the Indian Ocean so there are also cases where the call is discretionary. Is there a category for 'abandoned ships'? Seems there are enough of them to warrant such a CAT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There are categories for Category:Naval ships captured by Germany during World War II. Found more captured ships at List of shipwrecks in June 1940. Manxruler (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, as the question has been raised, I've been treating captured ships under the "otherwise lost" criteria. Although the ships are capable of re-use if not scuttled, they have been "lost" to their original owners. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'otherwise lost' clause may then need to be more closely defined or removed. The title of the lists are 'Lists of shipwrecks in xxxx'. A ship lost to her original owners by capture is not a shipwreck and does not belong on the list. Nor does a ship sold in that year and therefore lost to her original owners through sale. Benea (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned sales, which are clearly outside the scope set forward in every list of shipwrecks. A ship taken by force is a loss to her owners, and thus eligible for inclusion. For those ships arrested and sold by the authorities, I'd say these should not be included. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course sale does not qualify as a shipwreck. Nor does a capture. In both instances a 'shipwreck' is noticeably lacking. Somehow a vague definition of a general sense of 'loss to original owner' has worked its way onto these list pages as a defining characteristic, apparently through a single editor. I would suggest that a capture is absolutely not eligible for inclusion on a list of shipwrecks. What do other editors think? Benea (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've already stated that I don't feel that captured ships belong on shipwreck lists, but I'll say it again. I don't agree with the inclusion of captured ships in these lists. Manxruler (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The (B-class) shipwreck article says "A shipwreck is what remains of a ship that has wrecked, either sunk or beached", and the (start-class)shipwreck (accident) article doesn't mention capture, nor sale. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion shows that we may need to define what entries should be made to the various list of shipwrecks, although many of them are tagged as needing expansion. A tightening of the eligibility criteria may result in lists again being tagged where they have been expanded recently. I'll not stand in the way of the removal of captured and re-used vessels, but please be careful not to break references by such removals. Captured and scuttled vessels should remain as list entries. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New category?

Again I agree with Manx', Benea and now GL' and Mj'. Seems we simply need a new CAT for captured ships. If there are a lot of them then 'Captured ships by country' of ownership, or by year (or decade), which ever is most practical to use. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's feasible. We should then differentiate between naval ships and merchant ships. For the naval ships we already have the example mentioned above, as well as (as far as I can recall) an American War of Independence related category for captured ships. Manxruler (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The other cat I thought about was Category:Vessels captured from the United States Navy, although that's very general, Category:Naval ships captured by Germany during World War II and its subcats are more specific, and something along the lines of what I can see as useful. Manxruler (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember, the purpose of a CAT is to sort large numbers of e.g.ships. Specialized sub-CAT's should only be created if there are enough examples for it in existence to warrant it. i.e.If there are only, say, ten examples of 'ships', each with its own type, (e.g.2 blue ships, 2 red ships, 4 green ships and 2 new ships) then they should simply all go under 'ships'. (Pardon the over-simplified analogy.) IMHO I think 'captured ships by decade' would be simple, yet definitive enough. If we start creating many different types of specialized CAT's then we defeat the purpose of categorization as now we have to sort through the CAT's themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Then how about sorting by war? That will lead to a large number being sorted. I think that would be better than using decades, by creating more of a common denominator for the categorized ships. Something like: "Merchant ships captured during World War II"? Manxruler (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be even better, since a war only involves two or more countries, and many countries don't even have a navy to speak of, if any. As for those ships captured in times of peace (does this ever happen?) we can just put them under 'Captured ships, Other'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, good. As to vessels being captured in "peacetime", there are examples like USS Pueblo (AGER-2) in 1968, although it could be argued that her capture occurred in the context of the still not concluded Korean War. Manxruler (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How about a List of captured ships. We've already got lists of those ships captured by Somali pirates so this could be an extension of that. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If a list should be the preferred option here, then I think we should divide the lists by year, or war, or year of war. One huge general list of ships that have been captured (in war) would probably not serve much of a purpose. Manxruler (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The list of captured ships could be a "head" list, similar to the List of windmills. We could probably sustain lists per century (xx01 - yy00) with the possibility of lists for WWI, WWII and the Spanish Civil War. I don't see the need to distinguish list by who the captor was though. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

True. If we're going to go for a list solution, then there's no need to distinguish by captor. Manxruler (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)