Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beachedwhale1945 (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 20 May 2023 (→‎Streamlining Formatting: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

USS and USNS

An editor has raised an issue on my talk page. They state that ships of the same name with different prefixes (i.e. USS ''Foo'' and USNS ''Foo'') should be disambiguated further with their hull number because they are both operated by the United States. I am unclear if the prefix already disambiguates the ships or if they need the extra disambiguation like a hull number or year of launch. Furthermore, would this also apply to the Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary since they too share the same nation of operation. Thanks again. Llammakey (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that raised the issue is addressing US Navy ships only, not ships from the RN or any other nation. (fyi) - wolf 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore does is this apply not only to USS and USNS, but also to USCGC and USRC and USFC since those ships overlap as well? Llammakey (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguators are used to create unique article titles. It is not possible to have more than one USS Foo article. If the 'natural' title of an article is USS 'Foo' and there is already an extant article with that name, the new article gets a parenthetical disambiguator so that the title is unique. The USS Foo article is not the same as the USNS Foo article so no need to distinguish between these articles by disambiguation. USS Foo (ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (T-ABC 1000) – with dabs – should redirect to: USS Foo and USNS Foo respectively. For completeness, redirect articles with titles using wrong prefix/dab combinations might be created: USS Foo (T-ABC 1000) and USNS Foo (ABC 1000) might both redirect to one ship article (USS Foo) or redirect to a ship list article: USS Foo or List of ships named Foo.
It is the article title that is being disambiguated; not the ship.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Trappist said; and to avoid any confusion, the {{distinguish}} hatnote can always be used. Parsecboy (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I was doing, but I wanted to make sure I was doing it correctly after the editor raised concerns. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another good reason why we shouldn't use hull numbers, we should use launch dates. This would help with disambiguation, The problem will only get worse with every passing year, it will be unintelligible by the next century if we last that long. Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to all ships, and all navies. A disambiguator is only needed if there are two or more vessesl with the same prefix and name. Thus USS Foo, USS Bar (1797), USS Bar (1840), USS Bar (1935) etc. Also, USS Foo, USNS Foo, USCGC Foo (CGC-1) USCGC Foo (CGC-77) etc. Llammakey has been doing good work recently moving article to non-disambiguated titles where that is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grantala and Figuig

Please will someone with the right tech skills sort out a duplication of Wikidata pages for HMAS Grantala and fr:Figuig (paquebot de 1916)? The English, Farsi and Polish articles are linked, and have the Wikidata page Q5630359. But the French article has its own Wikidata page Q109037792, which makes it harder to link it to the others. Thanks! Motacilla (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: is a Wikidata expert. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Maris

The Regina Maris presented in wikipedia was not a schooner. She was a barkentine. 24.113.147.58 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself seems basically correct. From 1908 until 1963 she traded as the topsail schooner Regina (three fore-and-aft rigged masts, with two square sails on the upper part of the foremast). This is clearly described in the article which notes that, after the fire and changing hands, she was re-rigged as a barkentine (foremast fully square-rigged, as can be seen in the photo. However the article title is wrong, as she was only a barkentine after being renamed Stella Maris. As, i my view, this is the name under which she was best known, I suggest moving the article to Stella Maris (barquentine) (the spelling already used in the article) or - my preference - Stella Maris (1908), which would mirror Stella Maris (1929), the former USS Vixen (PG-53). Davidships (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the move to Stella Maris (1908) - keeps things from getting bogged down in the rigging type Llammakey (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Brain failure - certainly less than stellar performance. Should be Regina Maris (1908) etc etc Davidships (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Regina Maris (1908). Also the redirect Regina (1908 schooner) needs to be created once the move has been done. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom

Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict does not include Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom. And "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" says it cannot be edited to rectify this. Will someone who understands how this works please ensure that "Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom" is included in "Category:Royal Navy ships by conflict"? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been added. Llammakey (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engine infoboxes

Main page: Template talk:Infobox aircraft § Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schooner Lily -> "HMS Bounty" -> USS Metha Nelson?

Please come to Talk:USS Metha Nelson to discuss differing tales of this / these ship(s). The articles about Lily(German) and Metha Nelson name different shipyards and building dates but jointly have her become HMS Bounty for the 1935 film, and USS Metha Nelson in WWII. Is there a uniform truth? Alossola (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340815.2.214&srpos=193&e=------193-en--20--181-byDA-txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SPNP19340814.2.142&srpos=6&e=------193-en--20--1--txt-txIN-Mutiny----1934---
i'd be careful though. even though the information of those reporters who just came back from drinking a few glasses of champagne at the harbor are very reliable, they don't actually precisely specify which ship they mean when they say "venerable Lily".
although there remains reasonable doubt, the answer seems to be that 2 ships were reconditioned for the film. one at the Craig yard, one at Wilmington Boatworks. Nowakki (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can also easily find more evidence that the "Metha Nelson" was used in a couple of films in the early 1930s.
https://archive.org/details/monroe-morning-world-1932-09-04/page/n19/mode/2up?q=%22metha+nelson%22
including in Treasure Island (1934 film). you could try and compare those ships to the pandora in the 1935 film.
it would not make sense to build an accurate replica out of a replica when you also need an inaccurate replica for the movie to act as the pandora. Nowakki (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Nowakki! I'd never have found these sources!
There are two ships in the story (and the movie), Bounty and Pandora. The first two links make the names and roles quite clear. In 1934, "New Bounty (= Lily) was (re)launched". Festivities were on Metha Nelson = Pandora. The former had "starred" in movies from 1931 on - not the re-launch.
The last link, Monroe Morning World, 1932, gives an insight into the history of Metha Nelson by naming some of the movie credits as a classic full-rigged ship. The only logic conclusion is that Pandora received her old name afterwards. Till today, there's no clue for me what happened with Lily.
I'll have to sort out the sources to find out more. Alossola (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
having a date range for a big harbor event in a 20th century known US location is easy. anybody can predict what words a newspaper article is likely to contain.
if you want you can puzzle together the whole history of the Lily from California, Oregon and Washington digital newspaper archives. The mere departure or arrival of a ship in a town should in general at least result in one line in a listing. An accident would be front page news in half a dozen papers. if it bled, it led. Nowakki (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno how to do that, and I have a lot of informations. Metha Nelson was clearly a full-rigged ship in the film trade from 1931 or earlier, rebuilt from the three-masted schooner she was before. The fabled launch of Bounty in 1934 can only be Lily, and she is named clearly, more than once. The treasure hunt of 1938 is clearly placed on Metha Nelson. The only "obstacle" is that the Navy talks about Bounty in her military registration. I deem that an error.
We worked on USS Metha Nelson, and I have Lily in my space, ready to launch tomorrow, 6:00 UTC. Wanna take a look? Alossola (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is what i mean. there must be something interesting there. maybe a shark attack.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=q&hs=1&r=1&results=1&txf=txIN&txq=%22schooner+lily%22&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------- Nowakki (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also for the sake of gathering intelligence it would always be nice to know which shipping companies the boat sailed for, and where it spend all the boring time, sort of like a statistical overview or just a big table listing boring journeys. you never know who might be interested in 20th century pacific coast trade. Nowakki (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great sources, thanks! No big news though, except that there might be another(?) Lily which was lost in 1891, or she was rebuilt from a wreck(??) Alossola (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining Formatting

The class overview template has standard "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" ("Class before" and "Class after") to show the development of particular classes. However, in some cases multiple classes were built concurrently for different reasons, enough that a third line for concurrent classes should be added.

The clearest modern example are the US Littoral Combat Ships. Both classes were ordered and are being built concurrently, with the Freedom-class receiving odd hull numbers and the Independence-class evens. Another would be the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates: the orders were for three Type 26s in 2017, five Type 31s in 2018, and then five more Type 26s in 2022 (Royal Navy orders only), with both classes being built concurrently by different yards. The Benson class destroyer was not succeeded by the Gleaves class, they were ordered and built concurrently with different shipyards building different classes (primarily Bethlehem yards building the Bensons, particularly the repeat ships). US Destroyer Escorts of WWII were not ordered/produced in the Evarts->Buckley->Cannon->Edsall->Rudderow->John C. Butler order implied by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys (in turn implied by the hull number of the lead ships), they were ordered/built as follows:

1. First 50 Evarts-class ordered under a British contract in November 1941

2. Another 70 Evarts-class along with 600, Buckleys, Cannons, and Edsalls ordered in January and August 1942 and built concurrently (classes mainly distinguished by different propulsion plants)

3. Rudderow and John C. Butler re-ordered from 3" designs in late 1942/early 1943 and built concurrently (followed by a short-lived order for 205 ships)

These are just particularly obvious examples for ships of the same type built at the same time by the same nation. There are more examples, particularly if you start considering ships with the same official classification but different capabilities. Germany built a few different types of U-boats concurrently, but the bulk of their production were the Type VII medium-range and the Type IX long-range submarines (with some specialized boats). This is a grey area, and I have deliberately chosen an example that in my opinion should be included as concurrent classes, but other examples would likely not be suitable (continuing the theme, the specialized Type XB and Type XIV).

These are sometimes noted by the Preceded/Succeeded Bys, or even Subclasses even when the latter is not appropriate. For example, the Type 23 frigate lists the Types 26, 31, and 32 as ships that will succeed this frigate, but the Type 26 and Type 31 pages don't mention the others in the Class Overview template. The three pages make it clear that the Constellation class was preceded by the Freedom and Independence classes, but neither LCS page notes the other concurrently in the Class Overview template. Others, particularly the WWII destroyer escorts, don't mention this at all and as it currently exists gives an incorrect view of progression between the classes. For Subclasses, the Type XXI notes "Type XXIII (parallel coastal submarine project)": these were two parallel branches of the Elektroboot concept, but the Type XXIII was not a variant of the Type XXI in the way that Subclasses is usually used (such as the Dunlap variants of the Mahan-class destroyer).

Currently the best attempt to recognize the differences would be the Type VII U-boat page. The Type VII page has the Type IX listed as a succeeding class, but as "Type IX (long-range complement)" in an attempt to be a bit more accurate (this is not mirrored on the Type IX page). It's clunky and works if there were a handful of cases, but it's not as useful for a larger scale, and other U-Boat pages don't use this nearly as well (like the Type XXI and Type IX pages).

Given the number of examples I believe we should add a third group to formalize the concurrent classes, along with rules about when this should and should not be used to clear up the grey area.

Slightly modified from original posted in Infobox ship begin based on advice from Trappist the monk

Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In most of your examples, you're looking at the templates and the progression a bit too narrowly. In other words, the field does not imply a clean delineation between construction, and a class does not need to complete construction before an improved design begins building for the latter to be considered a successor to the former. Most modern warships overlap construction periods with their predecessors. That doesn't mean they don't fit together in a generally coherent chronological ordering, or that design lineages cannot be traced between them. The St Vincent-class battleships were built almost entirely concurrently with the Bellerophon-class battleships, but this does not mean the former did not succeed the latter.
The Gleaves were successors to the Bensons (in so far as they constitute a separate class and not a sub-class) because they incorporated design changes over the earlier vessels. That more Bensons were ordered after work began the first Gleaves speaks more to the pressing need for warships than anything else. The same is true for the DEs you cite; there were rolling, iterative changes between classes, but the pace of orders meant that most of them were built at roughly the same time. The design staff took the Evarts design, lengthened the hull, and produced the Buckleys. They then took that design, swapped the turbo-electric drive for diesel-electric propulsion, which produced the Cannons, and so forth, through the J.C. Butlers. An oversimplification, sure, but you see the point.
In any event, the template documentation does not limit those fields in the way you seem to be interpreting them. Yes, there are a few messy cases like the Independence/Freedom classes, but those are exceptions and in those situations, just don't use the fields. Not every infobox needs every field completed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the documentation page notes:
"If you find yourself using the same custom field for a large number of articles, consider proposing adding the field to the infobox template on the template talk page."
Given the number of examples I know of, only some of which I cited, this certainly qualifies as a large number of articles, hence my request that we formalize such a line.
The examples I cited are all based on the order dates, not the construction dates. I'm not asking to include such lines for construction that overlaps when there's a clear design progression (St. Vincent clearly came after Bellerophon). I am asking this line be included for proper contemporaneous projects, which are in my opinion numerous enough to justify standardizing such an addition. I will focus on the WWII US examples as this is my bread and butter and I have sources on hand.
For Benson/Gleaves, the first six Bensons and two Gleaves were ordered on 30 September 1937 using competing machinery designs. In fact, quoting Friedman's U.S. Destroyers, page 95:
"Initially, all ships were to have incorporated the new type of machinery first introduced in the Mahans. However, after contract award Bethlehem asked to modify its contract, returning to a two-turbine arrangement."
Thus, if we're going strictly on which was designed first, Gleaves came first, Benson second.
An additional 16 Gleaves followed using the standard machinery arrangement (ordered 15 August-1 October 1938 and 15 June-1 July 1939), but then the war in Europe began and the US saw an immediate need for more destroyers. From 12 June-1 July 1940 the US ordered two more Bensons and 10 Gleaves, and then on 9 September another two Bensons and 13 Gleaves: this began the "repeat" series that according to some sources are all listed as Bristol class (see Department of Defense historical study map below, which only includes the 72 repeats). Ultimately 24 repeat Bensons and 48 repeat Gleaves were ordered, and quoting Friedman's U.S. Destroyers, page 97:
"Navy willingness to accept what Admiral Bowen called a "bastard" machinery arrangement in the Bensons was a matter of the exigencies of mobilization: after DD 428, the Bensons were the products of Bethlehem yards ... The other destroyer builders completed Gleaves-class ships".
Thus the two classes were ordered contemporaneously and one did not succeed the other. See Friedman's US Destroyers, with order dates coming from Shipscribe's compendium of all US Navy program order dates.
As for destroyer escorts, the primary problem facing the destroyer escort production was a lack of suitable propulsion plants, as the US diesel engine and reduction gear manufacturing bases could not keep up with demand. Thus while the US quickly standardized on the lengthened hull for ease of manufacturing (except at Navy Yards already building the Evarts), we had to adopt different machinery plants for all classes, which is why the two- and three-letter codes for machinery are the main way these are distinguished in period records and by historians like Friedman and Franklin. The Buckley/TE, Cannon/DET, and Edsall/FMR classes were all ordered at the exact same time from different shipyards. For example, the 1,799 Vessel Program ordered 25 Evarts/GMTs, 117 Buckleys/TEs, 66 DETs, and 42 Edsalls/FMRs from 10-25 January, with ships of three classes ordered on 10 and 18 January.
The requirements of war production meant the first three long-hull classes were ordered at the same time and are concurrent designs. See Friedman's Destroyer Escort chapter and Franklin's The Buckley Class Destroyer Escorts, though this basic data is repeated in most sources (again order dates from Shipscribe).
In December 1942 the US re-ordered 340 of the existing ships to 5" designs, which coincided with a simple two-stage reduction gear design and expansion of the gear cutting industry. Thus the TE/Buckley orders were upgraded to TEV/Rudderows while the GMT/DET/FMR orders were upgraded to WGT/John C. Butler, getting a nice speed boost in the process. Again these are two concurrent designs.
I could write such lengthy analyses other examples I cited and a few more I did not, but I'm using the books I have on hand so that I can cite secondary sources for this discussion.
That's the entire point of my request. As it stands, there are several cases where the Class Before/After line is used to create a false impression of the progression of several designs or leaves out major concurrent projects. Given the sheer number of such cases, in my opinion a third line is necessary to clean these up and eliminate such errors, improving these pages overall and leading to improved accuracy for all such articles.
Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the Bensons and Gleaves reversed, but you have missed the fundamental point: the Gleaves design was prepared, and changes were made to it to produce the Bensons. They are, by definition, derivative designs, and therefore the Bensons succeeded the Gleaves class. It doesn't matter when they were ordered, or built. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't matter when they were ordered, or built."
Except it does if you're trying to paint a more accurate picture of the progression of US destroyers during the prewar and early war period. You're arguing over a few weeks difference in the design dates rather than the years of concurrent construction. The concurrent construction should take precedent in the template, the nuance in the body of the article.
But you are also focusing on refuting a couple of my examples rather than looking at the broad trend. Concurrent design and production is evident throughout modern warship history, particularly in the smaller combatants that are built in larger numbers. We should recognize this and include it in the template to enhance it, making it more clear for the average reader that there are parallel branches to follow.
Many nations built different submarines at the same time for different roles, such as the aforementioned Type VII medium-range and Type IX long-range submarines. The Soviet Projects 611 "Zulu" large/613 "Whiskey" medium/615 "Quebec" small submarines are good examples built in the early 1950s, but there's also the Japanese Type A command cruiser/Type B aircraft-equipped cruisers/Type C non-floatplane cruiser submarines (to say nothing of the other types of Japanese submarines also built concurrently). While a bit outside my knowledge base, this appears to be particularly common before 1920 when navies often saw competing submarine designs, such as the legendary Holland/Electric Boat and Simon Lake duel in the US.
It was rather common to see two different tiers of destroyers, with larger and more powerful ships built alongside smaller less capable ships. This was particularly evident with the Japanese (which at different times had first/second/third class destroyers), such as the Minekaze/Momi classes that gave way to the improved Kamikaze/Wakatake classes (both lines continue before this point, though that's outside my knowledge area). This was echoed in WWII with the Yūgumo-class continuing the Type A line and Akizuki-class starting a new Type B series, both ordered starting with the Circle 4 Program, although no official Second Class destroyers were built during the war (though the Matsu-class inherited the botanical naming convention despite being over the 1,000 ton cutoff). In addition to Benson/Gleaves, the US built the 1,500 ton and 1,850 ton "leaders" concurrently, which is why the Somers-class hull numbers overlap with the Gridley-class (and later classes due to later orders).
I've cited a few frigates/corvette examples, but there are others. Perhaps the most clear would be the Japanese Type C and Type D kaibōkan, which blend the WWII US destroyer escort and modern LCS threads. Japan could not build enough of a single propulsion plant and designed the Type Cs to use diesel engines and the Type Ds to use a steam turbine, with diesel ships getting odd numbers and steam evens.
I could go on, but I believe I've cited more than enough examples to cross the "large number of articles" threshold where a dedicated field should be considered. This proposal should not be ignored because technically one design in every pair was finalized a few weeks earlier than the other even though both designs were ordered together and intended to complement each other.
Beachedwhale1945 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sims should have 2 successor classes and Benson should have zero successor classes. Nowakki (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=1156044162"