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 66.220.113.98 (talk) at 17:11, 3 November 2011 (→‎Media availability). 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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

new infobox ship template

... has been created - Template:Infobox ship builder. Does anyone have an opinion on this, I'm not 100% sure myself, but its already started to appear on ship articles. Benea (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a bit much information as I expect anybody's who's really interested in the location of, say, Wallsend, to just click on it. I see about three extra lines of not real useful information lengthening the already long infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression is "why do we need this?" I see at least one problem - that of over categorisation. MV Port Fairy is now in the categories Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom, Category:Tyne-built ships and Category:Wallsend-built ships. If these were not automatically generated, I would remove the first two as supercats. See Wikipedia:Categorization - "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Shem (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much need for it. We shouldn't be trying to cram as much information as possible into the infobox. Shem makes a good point about over-categorization. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the over-categorisation comments. It also makes the whole infoboxship/begin, already quite complicated as it incorporates three nested templates, even more so. If we have one subtemplate for build location, could we also not have them for other fields, which would make a difficult situation more so? The only advantage I can see is that it automatically adds the build location cat, and even this is problematic since it now forces them to be over-categorised. It also compels a user to put in as much information as possible, all the way down to the country, which seems excessive detail for an infobox. Given that the vast majority of these ship articles already had the appropriate build cat, that it is routinely added in passing if it is missing, and that it would be far easier on encountering an article without one to simply add it rather than making all these changes to the existing infobox, then I don't see it as solving any problem. Benea (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any use for this template as typing the same information manually with proper wikilinks and choosing a suitable category takes only couple of minutes. Also, I think the yard number is defined incorrectly. Or perhaps not. Tupsumato (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this new infobox as really simplifying anything - if anything, it makes things even more convoluted by having a template embedded in a template that's already embedded in another template. I see this new infobox as moving in the wrong direction. The articles using Template:Infobox ship builder should be migrated over to using the standard Template:Infobox ship begin format. If there are any elements in the new infobox that are of use to the project, and consensus exists to add those elements, then the current infobox should be updated to include them - but creating a new template for this is added unneeded complexity to an already large template structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem I can see is that when the name of a city is entered for which no category exists (like Dover), the article will automatically be categorised in a non-existent category, like Category:Dover-built ships. This is fine while User:JonEastham is using his own template, but once it gets into the wild, or when other editors edit his work, there will be problems, and many (most?) editors won't be able to fix a red link category if it's automatically generated. On the whole, I think this is a bad idea, although I'd like to hear the case from JonEastham. Shem (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as though much of the information contained in the info box could/should be covered in the text, esp when it gets into the historical aspects. i.e.Commanders, battles, etc. Sometimes there is so much 'data' listed that the box projects down into the page considerably. Or how about making the 'General characteristics' section of the box collapsible? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) the template is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, but seems to create its own issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I attempted to solve with this template was to standardise the display and categorisation of ship articles to include both categories for the location built, and the builder of the ship. The latter being the primary purpose when I set out to create the template. The original plan was to automatically add the articles to a Category for ship built by sorted by Yard number (I've since decided it's probably better to not sort by yard number as very few articles contain the yard number.) I do agree about the over-information in the infobox, the location being perhaps a bit too specific, but this will be a problem no matter whether there is a template or not. I believe the location needs to be defined for the builder as shipyards move, but builders don't, builders can have multiple shipyards etc, the template at least prompts the user for what information is suitable. With regards de-cluttering the fields, more than happy for someone who knows how, to re-write the template to drop certain items when all fields are completed. I couldn't workout what criteria to use that suited all situations (ie, defining the city when the region is Western Australia helps narrow it down to where the location actually is, but defining the city when the region is as small as a UK county may not be necessary.) I considered having both the country and then lowest denominator (either city or region) for the categories. With regards red-linked categories, I don't think that should be much of an issue. Any user can define a category on an article but not tie that new category into an existing category structure. There must be someway of highlighting these in a similar way to the New Article feed. If the consensus is not to use the template then I'd instead suggest including some aspects into {{Infobox ship career}} instead of a sub-template. JonEastham (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the value in the added categories - and even if I did, using the template to accomplish this appears to go contrary to WP:TEMPLATECAT.
For the text inserted into the template, as I said above, I would support adding any elements which gain consensus into the primary Template:Infobox ship begin template, so as to avoid the added clutter of an additional sub-template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barek has brought up a killer fact; for good reasons WP:TEMPLATECAT says we should not using this functionality to automatically generate categories. As far as I can see, that's the purpose of Template:Infobox ship builder, and if that's the case, I would ask JonEastham to undo his changes as soon as convenient. Shem (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the template at JonEastham's request.  —SMALLJIM  11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

infobox ship wreck templates

They were created 2 years ago and I didn't feel like starting drama over them. Since the topic of "add a box" is now being discussed I thought I would throw these into the ring. My personal thoughts are that some of the parameters could be transferred over to "ship begin" or whatever. Brad (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? Mr. Parker? Mr. Lewis? Brad (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent on their standalone use within a "ship wreck only" article. As for using with and/or integrating into the ship infobox, I think its complete overkill: almost everything of relevance would be covered in the lead section text if it was important. About the only fields that I see as of use are "ship discovered when" and "ship position" from the Locatopn template, although the latter is/should be redundant to coordinates appering in the top right corner of the article. -- saberwyn 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we don't need this in the infobox. A summary in the 'fate' section is enough. 'Wrecked on [date]', then the details in the text. Benea (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with saberwyn (and following ec - Benea), my position on the subject is almost identical - existing fields in the ship infobox setup can accomodate the info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Shipwreck" is one word. Roger (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About 50 articles are using the templates. Should the information be moved elsewhere in the article before deleting the template? I don't know what would happen otherwise. Brad (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

More writing, less 'tweaking'

While looking through the List of sloops of war of the United States Navy for an adequate sister image to use in the newly created USS Concord (1828) article I began to encounter one article after another with no inline citations. At first I thought this would be normal for some articles, but as I went from article to article I came to the realization that this was, and is, par for the course. Then I saw something else a little unsettling. Most of the sloop (and sailing frigate) articles (and no doubt others) were lifted from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Even though it's a PD source, folks shouldn't cut and paste text and just leave it as is, and we're still supposed to provide inline cites. I've cut and pasted once before myself, just to rough-in some text but then I build on it with RS's and provide inline cites. (Even got my hand slapped while I was doing it, so I'm not up on some pedestal here, but I had the intention of expanding it and integrating it with other RS's from the start.) You'd think with all the users on a 'mission to clean up' these articles would have been fixed by now. Unfortunately many have been like this for quite some time. Below is dual nav box with a list of the articles that need attention, most of them with zero inline citations and a few with only one or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you being not just a little pedantic? We have the DANFS template for that, and your personal sense of indignation is not going to alter how we view public domain sources. If you are that bothered go fix it, it will probably take less time than your tagging crusade. And by the way, we already have a general cleanup listing that shows all shipping articles missing inline citations, not just your pet ones. Weakopedia (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, cutting and pasting is now discouraged throughout Wikipedia. See WP:PLAGIARISM and the Signpost article that I'm sure is linked there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same WP:PLAGIARISM where it says A practice preferred by some Wikipedia editors, when copying in public-domain, or free content, verbatim, is to paste in the content in one edit, with indication in the edit summary of the source of the material. If following this practice, immediately follow up with careful attribution, so that the new material can't be mistaken for your own wording. and where it says Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia or some different one, and if so do you have a link? Weakopedia (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are three bullet points below the sentence you quoted, including one calling for inline citations. Then an example is given of that([1]), which does not actually use inline references for the PD material. Would be a good idea to start a discussion at the talk page and clear that up. My position is that a single template at the bottom is sufficient for articles consisting mostly/entirely of PD material. Yoenit (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the template sufficient. The example you link to was started with text from a public domain source and was properly attributed when it was created. Let us say someone starts an article with text from DNFAS. Let us say they even reword the whole thing. Do they really have to put a refname dnfas at the end of every sentence or statistic or infobox line? Surely that is why we have the DNFAS template. In a perfect world anyone adding information to the article from other sources would provide references for them, and everything unattributed would be from DNFAS. Maybe this isn't how things are in reality, but isn't the only alternative the refname dnfas? And is this so different from anyone starting a short article from a single source? Surely they will just put a citation at the end, and any subsequent contributor, if adding additional sourced info to the middle of the article, would add their reference, leaving the opening part unattributed. We don't generally cite every sentence in a paragraph we take from PD, do we? Just the paragraph... Weakopedia (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harumph, it appears we have another case of a guideline contradicting what the community's current thoughts are on an issue (at least AFAIK). Now, Weakopedia, how is that in any way a consistent reference style? Plus, this is Wikipedia. You can't rely on "everything not cited can be attributed to DANFS". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ed17. The DANFS template only notes that some content came from DANFS. While that might be tolerable when DANFS is the only source, once other references are used and inline citations given, then that which is DANFS sourced needs to be accurately noted. And IMHO if it comes to a point where everything is cited to a source other than DANFS, then the DANFS template ought to be removed as it's no longer true (a link to the DANFS page in Ext links instead). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ed and GL': -- Look down this road a bit. What happens when some one comes along and begins to edit, adding new text and/or deleting PD text within the greater PD text? Esp when someone adds something without citing it. It will appear that this too came from the PD source. -- Best not to cut and paste, period. That way WP doesn't become a PD dumping ground for people too lazy to read / research / write / cite articles and other editors won't have to sort out what is PD and what isn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to look at this in the light of having pd text placed on wikipedia, with the alternative of not having these articles at all. There are many many ships and few editors who work on them. There are thousands of articles on Royal Navy ships, and probably something like 10,000 still to write. Given that there is no pd source for the RN as there is for the USN, the only way to write these is through the long hard slog of research and original creation, hence there is so much still to do. I would be against calling editors lazy, because they chose to import this text quite legitimately and may have done so with the goal of building this encyclopedia. The alternative is thousands upon thousands of redlinks on missing US Navy ships and years and years to go before they had articles. I appreciate you were shocked Gwillhickers, and feel people should do more to rewrite articles that were created this way, but the amount of work is such that people are slow to get around to it, and may have other things they like doing here first. Tagging rarely accelerates clean up processes, the best thing is to fix it yourself. The problem of lacking inline cites is much wider than just the DANFS imported text as well, some users spend their time addressing articles with no sources whatsoever, compared to which the DANFS template provides comparatively good sourcing and attribution. The DANFS template is considered sufficient for now, and is intended to be temporary until the articles are properly sourced, expanded and rewritten, etc. As a final note, can we not have the 'clean up list' of articles below. If it is going to be updated as work progresses (as I assume is the intention) it will keep this discussion from being archived. Alternatively it will not be updated regularly and will thus disappear into the archives. Perhaps a user subpage would be more appropriate? Benea (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are viable and practical alternatives. It doesn't have to be 'PD or none at all' here, and no one is asking to have the DANFS material outright removed. Articles are written (or cut and pasted as the case may be) one at a time and can be dealt with, cited, in that manner. We don't want to encourage someone to dump dozens of cut and pasted articles in one session. Again, what happens when someone comes along and adds text to the PD material and just leaves it with no cite? Are you prepared to watch-list many dozens, hundreds, of these cut and paste jobs, making sure nothing else is inserted under the guise of DANFS? Again -- by allowing cut and pasted material we are paving the road for WP to become a dumping ground for PD text. Btw, I am in the process of fixing these articles, adding bibliographies, RS's and inline cites, and it is no easy task in some cases. No excuse for shortcuts though. Most of the famous/important ships are well written and cited. We should stick to that standard.
As for the location of the nav-box, yes, I have to agree, it will soon get archived so putting it in another location is a good idea. For now we can let it ride to give other members who don't log in every day a chance to see it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern about the copy & paste from DANFS, which I've raised before: plagairism. Yes, it's a PD source; that doesn't make it any less plagairism IMO. I consider it unethical, even if legal. (The "attribution" in the first edit IMO is a sop.) I appear to be in the minority on WP (which is, by now, no surprise to me...). I also think uncited material copypasted is a potential problem for anyone relying on WP for information, because it means a user could get nailed for not citing the source. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trek', yes as others and myself have indicated above, there are several issues that cut and pasted text brings up, even if the material is PD. Also, if we're going to allow (which I assume at this point we don't want to) cut and pasted PD text in articles it opens the door to cut and pasting from other WP articles, which are of course PD. And if the whole ball of wax is to be simply cited by one general reference at the bottom of the page it will provide the backdrop for unsourced inserted text, which will then appear to be also cited in this broad-brushed generic manner. No doubt the editors responsible for the 100+ cut/pasted articles had the best of intentions, and again, no one wants to outright remove the PD text, so long as it is fixed in the near future. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
Wikipedia articles are not PD, so no that is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the pieces are almost nothing except DANFS extract that have been merely reformatted into a "Wiki" look. The generally acceptable standard for long quotes of attributed material is to make it distinctive by italics or indentation. I think the real academic/publishing world would take a very dim view of something simply reformatted from a source and presented with "This article includes text from . . ." as citation. A single cite might suffice outside the academic/publishing world for a pure extract that is clearly marked as a simple copy--until anything is added. Then the precise problem mentioned comes up: Which is DANFS and what is not. I have added some Army history for vessels that were also Navy. Reference notes begin to be a problem when each fact/paragraph then becomes differently sourced. USS Camano (AG-130) is an example of a recent edit in which I added pre-Navy information. The result is a revised lead "History" paragraph with two cites and then two following that are the original DANFS needing a DANFS cite. I am not really comfortable with a simple cite at the end of a paragraph that is not also italicized or indented exact quote as another edit could add material that is not covered by the cite. That could become rather ridiculous if enough information is found to really develop the the thing further. This is a problem that could possibly be solved by making all such exact extract material distinctive. That said, there is some value in having these entries on ships as skeletons as they do provide a framework to which non-DANFS material can be added. Naval History and Heritage Command was working to expand the on-line DANFS, but the focus is very much Navy and often neglects prior or subsequent commercial or other government background for ships, particularly the non-combatants. Palmeira (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the notice says it contains material of (aka, a derivative work) rather than a word for word copy of the material. Yoenit (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As articles are fixed, please designate next to ship's name. i.e. USS Ship - Fixed


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)[reply]

Tons Burthen cannot be given metric equivalents

I'm sure many editors do know this, but I think I need to make a general point to people writing articles on sailing warships. I have just noticed that the person who constructed the articles on the 1706, 1719 and 1745 Establishments (and I suspect there may be other articles with the same fault) has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Apologies to those of you are already aware of this, but I think we need to spread the word that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Shem and I have between us corrected the particular three articles cited above, but there may mean that a number of other articles which need to be corrected. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it some kind of size measurement, like volume or length? Tons, feet, meters, etc are all units of measure, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Burthen. The idea of "tons burthen" has its own history (Which Rif will know and I don't). But basically is is a measurement of carrying capacity not a measurement of weight, displacement or dimension. The Land (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Captured ships CAT and List

A list would be nice but lists don't function as categories, and a list doesn't resolve the situation regarding captured ships being categorized as ship wrecks. We still need a captured ships CAT. No reason why we can't have both.
Once the CAT is created and the respective ships so assigned, it will generate a list of sorts which can then be referenced/copied to a refined and informative captured ship list. The list should also be sectioned off by war, each section/war in alphabetical order. The list should have a lede/intro, and perhaps each section (ie.War of 1812) should also have its own summary/lede. e.g.The War of 1812 was mostly a naval war, with many military and private ships captured, etc, etc.. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The captured ships list would work well in the See also section of any article about a captured ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category is "maritime incidents in...", which doesn't necessarily mean a shipwreck. I think we ought to start the list off, and worry about splitting as and when it proves to be justifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm following. A list is a great idea, but there was concern about 'captured ships' being categorized as wrecks. Now you mention a CAT for 'incidents' which is even a (much) broader term. Are you saying a CAT for 'captured ships' is not needed? Am not that familiar with the creation of CATS, but it was my impression one is needed for 'captured ships'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was mainly about captured ships being listed as shipwrecks. The Maritime incidents category can be applied to captured vessels, although that category is again a subcategory of transport disasters, which doesn't really work too well with the capture of a ship. Manxruler (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why a category for "ship captured in (year)" can't be a subcat of "maritime incidents in (year)". I was just saying that a maritime incident is not necessarily a shipwreck, although a shipwreck is always a maritime incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur. Should such a category be created, then that would be appropriate as a subcategory of the relevant maritime incidents category. Manxruler (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should do both, create a list (and sublists) and a category (with subcategories), and we should do it now. I can create categories, while others are better at creating lists. Manxruler (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. The list should be sectioned off by 'war' in chronological order, as nearly all vessels are 'captured' during a war. Pirated/captured ships can be in its own section at the bottom. Each section should have a small intro/lede. For those few ships that don't fit into any of these sections we could just have a 'Freak exceptions to the rule' section :-) (or 'Other') -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia search for "ship" and "captured" produces nearly 30,000 results. Therefore I'd say by century would be the initial split, with further splitting as it proves necessary. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30,000 !!? -- Pew! You do realize though that a century-section (at least for the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries) is going to be one hellava section. How about separate lists for each century, divided by war in chronological order? Before the 1600's records of ships in general will be somewhat scant so we will probably only need a few such lists, with a 'See also' at the bottom of each list directing you to the other lists. i.e.Captured ships of the 19th century -- Gwillhickers (talk)
OK, calm down! 30,000 results does not mean 30,000 ships! There will be false positives and duplications amongst that figure. Suggest "List of ships captured in the nth century" would be a good title. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list for each century sectioned off by war seems to be the best approach. btw.. do we really need the list with a title that says 'List of captured ships'? -- After all, articles of ships don't say 'Article of the Ship xyz'. Or do all lists say list? I've never checked on that particular item. Seems anyone with average grey-matter will be able to tell the difference at first glance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all lists starts with "List of..." so this should too. Divide by century is good, and further division by war completely necessary. Manxruler (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's list development

Actually, not all lists have "List of" in their title, but the vast majority do. I'd suggest we worry about individual wars as and when there are sufficient ships to justify a separate list. The century lists should come first -

- should do for a start. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. If there are 30,000 examples (bearing in mind false positives), I would assume that almost every war in modern history (1517 to present) is going to present us with quite a few ships, so I would recommend structuring the list and getting the war sections in place before hand. Even if a war-section is left empty for a bit it will still give order and context to the list. This way we won't have to sort them out later when the lists take or larger proportions, which I suspect they will do right off the bat. A short and definitive lede for each list, and short intro's for each war, no more than a few sentences, would also make the list comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good, other than that century should be written with a minor, not capital c. See: 19th century. By the way, I can think of a few captured Mediaeval ships too. Manxruler (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That'll work. Manxruler (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as for listing the individual ships we should designate 1. SHIP (linked and in bold), 2. Country of ownership, 3. Country captured by, 4. Date of capture (when available, if only the year is known, then that will work, if unknown, we can simply specify 'unknown'). -- This is the format I propose.

* USS Philadelphia, United States, Libya, October 31, 1803

The list could specify this format at the top of the page so we don't have to designate Captured by ... and Date of capture ... after every individual ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the info to be in prose format.
USS Philadelphia ( United States Navy): The Philadelphia-class frigate ran aground on 31 October 1803 at Tripoli, Libya and was captured by the Tripolitanians.
Her subsequent destruction would be an entry in the relevant list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroot's suggestion looks best to me. When a ship is the capturing party in relation to another ship, do we need to include the flag of the ship doing the capturing too? I've always thought that it looks sort of messy when there are several flags in one listing. Also, it would be nice if we could spell out (when it's a ship-on-ship situation) what type of ship is doing the capturing?
I'd be favour of something like:
HNoMS Tyr ( Royal Norwegian Navy): The Vale class minelayer Tyr was captured on 20 April 1940 by two German Schnellboots in the Hardangerfjord, Norway. Manxruler (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of flags for vessels other than the casualty vessel is one that Manxruler has raised with me before. I'm not against the removal of such flags, but then again I'm not against their inclusion either. How about we leave those flags off from these lists, thus allowing a direct comparison between them and the shipwrecks lists, and then we have a discussion over the issue at some point in the near future? Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are an excellent addition! They won't have any effect to a comparison to a shipwreck list for the few readers who might want to do that. The prose is also a good idea, so long as the entry doesn't become a paragraph, as the ship entry will be linked to an article. As the lists will be about Captured Ships the date of capture should be plainly visible and on the first line with the prose/other info following below. This is what it might look like.

Note: Dates are for time of capture.


Are we almost ready to launch? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use "class" with any of the generic ship types like frigate, sloop, etc. Only with ships of an actual class like Tyr in the second example above. Same with vessel. Keep it simple.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that's correct. Good point. I removed the striken term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. And I also like Mjroot's thoughts on creating a comparison with these lists. What I view as positive about having a single flag for a single posting is that it keeps the focus on the listed vessel. Manxruler (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point. More than one flag would divert focus, both subject-wise and visually. This will no doubt be a long list so we want to keep it easy to view as the reader pans through the many different ship entries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that we should split the centuries into 10-year blocks on a lvl 2 hdr, with individual years on a lvl 3 hdr. Use a toclimit of 2 to keep the table of contents manageable. Access to Colledge would probably be an advantage too, as many of the captured ships only have entries on shipindex pages. How about each of us start a list, and be generally responsible for the initial creation of that list, although any and all editors would be free to add or correct entries as necessary. I'd like to take the C18th list please. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've written rather extensively about ships and naval commanders of the 19th century I'll start the 19th century list. -- As for the fixed number of ten (decade) sections per century-list, there will no doubt be decades where no wars occurred and no ships were captured so having decade-sections with nothing in them will perhaps not be the best practical approach. Also, many wars no doubt over-lap into two decades so it's probably more practical to section off the century lists by war, in chronological order. For those few ships captured during peace time, they could be listed in between the given wars with a note: Peace-time capture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to move to a different part of the country in a couple of weeks, but I'll try my best. If I have a day or two to spend, things will work out. I would like to try to do something with the 20th century list. Manxruler (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each item should be a brief statement (a terse prose statement if that's possible?). The Manual of Style (WP:Boldface) is against the use of bold, and if there's a red or bluelink there is an automatic "highlighting" of the subject. I'd leave off the flag but I know others prefer them. I'd give the class if it meant a bluelink could be provided instead of a redlink eg "HMS Noship, a D class destroyer..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the MOS is against the use of bold, then it's out of step with long established practice in bolding the casualty vessel. Doing so emphasises which is the casualty. We can't use italics for emphasis as all ship names are in italics in the first place, and you can't italicise text already in italics. Underlining is not supported bu MOS, and somthing I'd be against too. So, we are left with bold italics for emphasis. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bold italics works for me - and I rather like the flags, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are also dealing with lists and virtually all the MOS do's and don't's regarding bold pertain to lede's, bio's, subjects, etc in article format. To visually differentiate names and dates of capture, the bold is almost a necessity, as these lists will become be very long. If we remove the bold entirely, even with italics, everything will appear run together, esp with the prose/notes for the ships in the lists. (Hey, doesn't WP encourage editors to be bold? -- just kidding.) If this becomes a pressing issue I'm hoping someone in higher places will employ some discretion with this rule and allow its usage in these types of lists, and again most of the MOS refers to bold usage in articles. Doesn't gave any examples, at all, about its employment in lists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the lists are in chonological order, then wouldn't the date go first? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would. The date must go first. Manxruler (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the many different lists of ships e.g. (1, 2,, 3, 4, 5 ...) they are all in chronological order, usually by date of construction/commission, while the placement of the date is seldomly (if ever) place first. The Ship's name (always) is. Also many lists have different formats; Some are simple, some employ boxes, charts, etc. In any event, there is definitely no 'one-size-suits-all' approach here. I thought we were settled on the above format, and that the issue now was to use bold or not. Need to get the bold issue straight before we take on other issues and before we take 'pen to paper'. Don't want to build a list only to have to redo format, etc because of a rule(?) that's not quite clearly delineated for list format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a list of ships, its the ship that is the focus. For the RN ones they are split into period, then type (with captured ships separate) then in chronological order. Whereas I assume in these case it's the event that's the focus as separation is by year then month. A table of some sort would allow for sorting, though they are more awkward to edit compared to a list broken into subsections... GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the use of tables. The prose format is easier on the eye, and makes for far easier editing too. I tend to disagree with Gwillhickers a little over the formatting of lists. It is inevitable that there will be some variation in editing styles between different editors. Let's each get our chose lists into some kind of shape first. Get the info down, then worry about tweaking for style and appearance. I've made a start on the C18th list now. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not big on tables or boxes for lists either. Lists should be easy to pan through, and bold ship's titles effect this nicely. Same with bold dates of capture. The prose works if it's brief, no more than a sentence, two tops if absolutely necessary. I'm having second thoughts about how to treat sections after looking at Mj's list. Would like to use his format, with the addition of naming major wars, although I'm not keen about seeing 'was captured' spelled out after each and every ship, as the list is about captured ships. Still think bold dates of capture works nicely with the understanding that the date is the date of capture. Need more feedback on bold. It was generically brought up, with not much else said about it regarding lists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Launching of lists

Further information: List of ships captured in the 18th century

OK, I've got the bare bones in, still a lot of work to do. So far, I've just put the basic facts in. My thoughts are that the entries could be padded out a bit by adding locations and subsequent fate of the vessel. Still a lot of referencing to do here, and I don't have the major works on the subject. Am hoping that the London Gazette will prove a fruitful source of information though. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks nice Mj', yes there is still quite a bit of referencing to do. I have incorporated your decade-section style but have inserted major wars for subsections with a summary style intro per captured ships. For now I am just employing decades and wars for sections/subsections and when the list grows to large enough proportions will add individual years for sub's as needed. I will keep a look out for reference material you can use in my travels. Most of the ref material I have in hard text or in e-reference pertains to the 19th century. -- A word about bold ship's names and/or dates of capture: When scrolling through a long list at a faster pace, these items don't become visually blurred or run together as the text goes by, and when you stop and view a given section of the list this page-theme information is of course visually apparent from the rest of the information, so it seems its use is almost essential as long lists go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in the list

The usage of flags in the lists IMHO are beautiful and serve well in inviting the reader into the page. As flag templates go I am still a bit unfamiliar with the ropes here. In particular, the British flags. Regarding the 'color' parameter I was experimenting and noticed that when changing the color it produces a different flag -- using a color besides red or blue or leaving the color parameter out produces the (second to the) last two examples:

  • ({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|red}}) = ( Great Britain)
  • ({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|blue}}) = ( Great Britain)
  • ({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|white}}) = ( Great Britain) -- (all other colors)
  • ({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain}}) = ( Great Britain) -- (default / no color parameter)

Was just wondering where each of the types are used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, searching around I found out exactly when to use flags for 'Kingdom of England (until 1707)', 'Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800)' and ' United Kingdom (1801–present)' but am still not clear about the red and blue types at the top of the example-list here. Will continue searching. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, quick crash course. Pre 1707 it's England or Scotland (gets a bit complicated in the 1650s with Cromwell's antics!). 1707-1801 it's Kingdom of Great Britain. 1801-1923 it's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (use UKGBI to save on typing). From 1923 it's United Kingdom. Great Britain uses "red" and "blue" for civil and government ships, whereas UKGBI and United Kingdom uses "civil" and "government" for these. For the Royal Navy from 1801 just use {{navy|UK}} as it gives the same image and link as {{navy|UKGBI}} and {{navy|United Kingdom}}. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mj' I noticed that some of the different templates produce the same results/flags:
Not quite the case, the first two produce a different result. Click on the link to see why. Mjroots (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captured ship's names

I'm noticing that articles for ships that were captured often use the name given to the ship after its capture. For example HMS Implacable is the name given to the ship after its capture. However, as a HMS vessel it was never captured. It was captured under the name Duguay-Trouin. Listing it with the new name with a British flag gives the reader the impression that it was a British vessel that was captured. So is it acceptable to use the original ship's name linked to the HMS article?

i.e. [[HMS Implacable (1805)|Duguay-Trouin]]

As there is no article using the original captured ship's name it would seem this would be the approach. There are other articles that don't list the original name, just noting that it was once a captured ship by the country that presently owns it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect from French ship Duguay-Trouin (1800), so type {{ship|French ship|Duguay-Trouin|1800|2}} to produce Duguay-Trouin. Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this produces the same result in this case. Is there a way to check to see if a page title has a redirect without going through a trial and error routine? If a lot of these renamed captured ships have the original name as a redirect this would certainly come in handy, but I suspect that's sort of a high hope on both counts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way is trial and error. You may need to creat several redirects where these do not currently exist. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde built

A few weeks ago, myself and one of the WM UK directors met up with Robin Urquhart of the National Archives of Scotland to discuss how we can work with them.

During the discussions, it was mentioned that they have a huge collection of images taken at the Clyde shipyards. These are partway through construction, through to actual launch.

By-and-large, what they lack is manpower and expertise to correctly catalogue these. Yes, a substantial part of the required work may well qualify as original research from a Wikipedia point of view, but this seems a too-good-to-miss opportunity to collaborate with the archives.

I would really like input from the WP:SHIPS community on what to ask for as a sample set of images. Bear in mind, I'm looking for minimal work on their part; Essentially, give us a random selection of images and the associated data the national archives hold, let Wikimedians poke it with a stick, and work out how the wiki community could collaborate with them to enrich their catalogue in exchange for access to the images.

Any feedback on this at all would be welcome. The ideal is if someone on WP:SHIPS is in Scotland and could come along and get introduced to the National Archives staff and take things from there.

I'll be checking back here irregularly to see what discussion this post may prompt; but, anyone based in Scotland with an interest should just go ahead and email me. Assuming we can work out some way of improving the archives' catalogue that they can point their paymasters (the government) at, I am quite confident they will be very helpful and happy to donate images. --Brian McNeil /talk 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - when you say "Clyde built", do you mean the images of ships hosted on the Clydesite website? Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall class information in individual articles

An editor has added design and construction information to the articles for each ship of the Anzac class but the information is identical in each article so it seems to me it would be better placed in the main class article than the individual ship articles because it's really a class overview, rather than being specific to each ship. Somebody will eventually come along and edit one article and not the others so the information will eventually be different in each article when it should be identical in all ten ship articles. The information is extensive and includes a long list of books,[2] so it's bound to get messy in the future. Adding {{main|Anzac class frigate}} to individual articles, or even transcluding the content from the main article to the individual articles seems a much less messy thing to do. Other projects seem to have no problem with this, but I was wondering what opinions other editors had here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult thing to balance between too much info and not enough. I tend to err on the side of too much, probably, but you need to cover all the info that's in the infobox. The class article should have all that same info, but in more detail. It should also provide some context about the design rationale for the ship and its weapons and electronics suite. Looking at one of the ship articles, I don't think that the editor has added too much basic detail, but it needs to be broken up into paragraphs for easier reading. But maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with Sturm, though there's probably some information that can be trimmed from the ship articles. And the information should be split up into topical paragraphs, you don't want to see propulsion system information in the same paragraph as armament. Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with including some information in the individual articles but the issue here is that it's exactly the same information, for the moment, across eight articles. Because the information is the same, and because there is an overall class article, there's no need to go into so much detail in the individual articles. All that is required in the ship articles is a {{main}} link to the class article, with some basic information about design (not 600+ words) and most importantly, specific information about the individual ship, such as the Anti-Ship Missile Defence upgrades that were made to HMAS Perth. It's a different situation when there is no class article, but one function of an overall class article, or any overview article regardless of the project, is to avoid unnecessary duplication of content, which is what we have here. The addition of the content has made individual ship articles mostly about design and construction of the entire class. with all of the articles now 2-3 times their previous size. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at most any ship FA - see for instance HMS Lion (1910) and SMS Markgraf (Sturm wrote the former, I wrote the latter), and you'll see that they all incorporate technical information that is also present in the sister ship articles. This is more or less expected by the community. Class and ship articles will always have some overlap - the class article should have a brief summary of the ships' careers, while the ship articles should have a brief summary of the technical information. That the service histories need further development doesn't necessarily mean too much has been put in the design sections. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. If you compare HMS Lion (1910) and HMS Princess Royal (1911),[3] you'll see there are significant differences between the two articles, showing both the appropriate customisation for each article, and the less desirable differences between the two in the aspects that are common, and therefore which should be identical. In some places the differences are contradictory, which is very undesirable. For example, one says "forced a 65% increase in size" while the other says the increase is 70%. If you look at SMS Markgraf and her sister ships, the differences are far fewer.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Most changes deal with the specific ship. The König class battleship articles contain far fewer common facts to mess up and instead the articles use that main link I suggested to König class battleship, where all the common facts are listed. In the Anzac class articles, there is absolutely no difference between articles. There is no customisation and much of the content deals with aspects that are really irrelevant to the ships themselves, such as political disagreements between the Kiwis and Americans (somewhat ironically, the content hasn't even been added to the NZ ship articles) or the inability to replace one type of helicopter with another because of airframe/avionic incompatibility. (The helicopters aren't part of the ships - they fly in when necessary) Considering the significant differences between just two articles on the Lion class ships, imagine the contradictory information bound to creep into the eight (should be ten) Anzac class articles. That's why a considerably briefer article with a main link to the main class article, like the articles of the König class ships, is a lot better. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote both the Lion and Princess Royal articles and most of the differences that I see using your diff are fairly trivial relating to format, etc. Or relate to the differences between the two ships. And, as I said earlier, I like a lot of technical info in my ship articles. If you think that Parsec's König class articles are a better model then by all means use that one; just be sure to cover the basic infobox information. I agree that the individual ship articles should not have much of what you mention as all that sort of thing is better kept for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the NZ Anzacs haven't been done yet is that there needs to be a different 'set' of text, which I haven't got around to setting up. There have been different post-construction modifications to the Aussie ships, and discussion of the NZ ships would require a summary of the political brouhaha around their acquisition that would be completely irrelevant for the Australian ships. I don't imagine there would be much 'error-creep' into the Anzac articles, as they were built to a standardised modular design in fairly quick succession, have been consistently modernised (within each navy's subset), and, apart from the first-of-the-new-upgrade Perth, are identical as far as the sources are concerned. There will be some variation in prose and layout over time as the articles develop (which is to be expected and is not at all a concern), but the data will remain the same until the sources say otherwise, and I think having all the articles 'start' from the same point makes it less likely that errors will creep into the tech specs. That said, I will make a pass and try to trim off a little detail, and make other tweaks per the comments in this discussion, but I feel that the content I added to the articles allows readers to gain a basic but comprehensive understanding of the design and capabilities of the vessel, along with the events and reasons that led to the vessel's existence, without forcing them to travel elsewhere (although on the flip side of the coin, if/when they check out the class article, there is a lot of detail and additional content not conveyed in here. -- saberwyn 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Type 209 submarine South Korea

I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm looking to get this problem resolved so I can continue editing. Right now there is a very heavily debated/sourced/questions-raised discussion ongoing about South Korean Type 209 submarine upgrades and modifications. I am requesting help from any editors with experience/knowledge about submarines (German/South Korean would be a plus) to help sort out the correct and incorrect and move on. Esw01407 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To wikifi or not to wikifi ...

I know there was a dsicussion on this some time ago, but I can't locate it. The question is on the lead sentence, should the ship prefix be wikified? I seem to recall that the discussion result was to not wikifi the initial bolded mention, but instead to wikifi the first usage of the prefix after that point. However, I can't find this anywhere, and the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Introductory sentence doesn't explicitly spell this out (although the examples provided show non-wikified). The reason I ask is there's a recent edit request to wikifi the prefix listed at Talk:RMS Titanic#Edit request from , 30 October 2011, and before responding, I was trying to locate documentation of a consensus of any type on this.

Does anyone recall where this was discussed previously, or where it might be documented? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Wikipedia MOS. MOS:BOLDTITLE says "Do not place a link within the bolded title" at bottom of that section. RMS is defined in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. Maybe move that part to a 2nd sentence in first paragraph, like Titanic was classified as a Royal Mail Ship." -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with how it's currently setup, in the second paragraph. Just wanted to locate where it was documented to reply to the edit request (which has now already been turned down by another editor - so no longer needed). But, thanks still for the pointer, I'll keep track of that for next time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for inclusion in lists of shipwrecks

I've stated a discussion at WT:SHIPWRECK on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tugboat Chickamauga

Tugboat Chickamauga

I recently snapped this photo (in Seattle) of an old tug called Chickamauga. I'm wondering whether anyone knows: is this possibly the tug by that name that was the U.S.'s first diesel tug, and which was later owned by Foss Tug? If so, probably worth an article; if not, does anyone know anything about this boat (when it was built, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], and [12] look earlier, and the last one implies that she is still in service but now as "Sea Chicken"? - unsigned
Agreed: looks unlikely to be that boat. Anyone know anything about this one? - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media availability

Hello I just returned from Patriots Point and took literally several hundred high res photos of Essex class USS Yorktown CV-10 and taped an end to end walkthrough of USS Clagamore. I have pictures of almost every subsystem on the carrier and even some images of non-accessible places that they hadn't marked very well. I don't work on these pages so much but I'm sure some of the pics will be good for the essex-class article or even one of the more general carrier articles. If some one wants to let me know what articles or sections they think are missing photos I will try and add something appropriate. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably all of your images would be welcome on Commons. There's a Commons:Category:USS_Yorktown_(CV-10). - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like we have many photos of the ship's insides, if you aren't willing to upload all of them. Either way, thanks so much for your offer! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the sections I have good unique imagery of, are things like the catapult room, engine room, galley, bridge. I also have plenty of shots of stuff like the dentist chairs, wardrooms and catwalks, but those are pretty generalized and not really linked to CV-10 in any particular way. I guess my question was more like: do you folks want these images added to aircraft carrier or Essex-class or should it stay on the cv-10 page? And because i'm not likely to find all the pages that need an image of the catapult for example, please let me know when you find them or others like that. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=458835788"