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 Trappist the monk (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 10 September 2015 (→‎automatic ship name formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

{{sclass-}} issue

To our resident template coders - a problem with the template has come to my attention. {{sclass-|Lord Clive|monitor}} should link to both the Lord Clive-class monitor and monitor (warship) articles, but it instead links to the monitor dab page. Can we fix the template so it points to the right article? Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{sclass-|Lord Clive|monitor||warship}} → Template:Sclass-
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Trappist. Llammakey (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top-cited missing publications/journals

The following journals/magazines are fairly highly cited on Wikipedia (see WP:JCW)

Any help on writing these articles would be much appreciated. You can consult our guides at WP:JWG and WP:MWG for help on writing them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission

See Draft:SS Cheribon. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ship naming, re-designations and source

I would like to request, when possible, that ship re-naming and re-designations be moved closer to the top of articles and even mentioned in the lead. Actually policy reflects that alternate names be placed in the lead in bold.
I have ran into confusion because we typically use the historical name and current sources regularly use the last name and designation. With literally 1000's of military vessels re-named and re-designated, it would be easier to ensure the right ship can be referenced. I have ran into several instances where one vessel was rename so another could use the name. I found a source Towingline.com that seems to be a vital source of information. It may already be in use but several articles that I lightly perused only had a single source. Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Trappist the monk (talk) nailed it. Towingline is just a copy of Navy History and Heritage Command's DANFS and by no means "a vital source of information" for referencing. The "ATO12 – Sonoma" is an exact copy of Sonoma with a bit of formatting very similar to that used for all those DANFS (Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships) copies here that refer to that "single source" you seem to have run across. For most Navy vessels that is the source from which almost all others flow. Palmeira (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ship names are sometimes a bit contentious here as seen in previous discussions and some downright confused ideas on what constitutes a name. For example, the name of a U.S. Navy ship. "USS" (denoting only a state of being in commission and honorific popularly used for ships once in commission) and hull numbers are not a part of the name anymore than "Senator" or "President" is the name of the persons holding those offices. We don't see "Senator Henry Clay (KY)" as the name of that historical person, in fact we do not see that in biographical titles here, yet we constantly see the equivalent for ships. A recent discussion here leaned toward a change but went nowhere. In fact, SS, MS, MV, RV and all the other prefixes that have become a cottage industry over in ship prefixes are not a part of the name itself, only designating propulsion and plenty of SS have become MS/MV. They are useful only in helping indicate a vessel of some sort in titles, but they are no more names than "Miss." and "Mrs." (and that declining practice is somewhat parallel to SS becoming MS/MV) or "Dr." or other forms of address are a person's name.
That said, I agree the sequence of names should be in the introduction, bold face and my practice now is to make the listing in the info box as well as recently with Leonard Wood. Where a ship legitimately has a non launch name that is so dominant as to be the title I think the brief introduction history should be chronological and include all the previous names and those should have redirect pages. A real problem here is the dominance of DANFS, simply because Navy keeps such loving and detailed records of almost every scow it owned (Yacal and somebody will someday do USS YD 56—and note neither warrants that "USS" either), and that public domain source is what gets here (often direct copies) for ships even when they have significant history outside the U.S.N. Palmeira (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory inspection shows that the Towingline source is simply a repackaging of DANFS.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another DANFS repackager! They are all over and personally I do not think this site should be just another. So many "articles" here are nothing but copies of DANFS that perhaps one page of links could replace vast swathes of Wiki. It appears NHHC is doing some work to make navigating their new DANFS section something short of a click through nightmare. The advantage of NHHC DANFS over any of the many duplicate sites is that apparently they have some intention of updating some of the old pedantic stuff with new information out of Ship's History Branch. I've run across a couple that have revised and expanded the old print versions that were transcribed to sites such as Haze Gray (did some of that myself long, long ago when NHC was just getting on the web). Palmeira (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't have time to look closely at it then thought I better inquire. I see what you mean about "the source from which almost all others flow.". I do have hesitancy of total dismissal with the comments (concerns) about "repackaging", weighed with "...updating some of the old pedantic stuff with new information out of Ship's History Branch. Apparently, examining information from a site such as Towingline needs to be checked against DANSF, to see if any "extra" information was something updated, otherwise it would be like using two different news sources, that both came from the same AP wire release right? :Of course I like to see that an old boat is still afloat so if I find more recent information to that effect I think it is important. I have ran into many instances where DANSF has recorded as "sold for scrape" and that is the end. The Tutahaco (YTB-524 then YTM-524) is one. What I am gathering here is that an article does not need to be USS Tutahaco (YTB-524), just Tutahaco (YTB-524) and the YTM-524 change in the lead and or article body? I ask this because many red linked names might have USS so clicking on that to create an article (I am in the process) automatically adds USS. :I am a little confused on the discussion of using USS, SS, SMS, HMS and the likes as many featured articles do just that. I did see that MV New Carissa was redirected to New Carissa with M/V in the lead. The MV Arctic Sunrise retains the name, and I would think famous enough without the MV. One editor even stated, "Arctic Sunrise is MY not MV".: I suppose it is a little nice with the many thousands of hits on a search to have something, sometimes, that gives a little extra disambiguation. There were many ships with SS around the WWI era (before, during, and after) that has SS, that endured many name changes, and many articles still use SS. My question is: If a ship article on an old SS ship is created has it become preferential to leave the SS off and put the year like "ship name" (1914)? :I am glad to see that moving the name up is agreeable. I was checking because I have had reversions of added content where that was contested. Apparently it is easier to just "revert" an entire edit, killing off good added content and references, because "We don't need to move the name up as it is covered in the lead.", even though it was at the end of the fourth paragraph. I can see some reasoning why editors make thousands of simple edits (we know it isn't to get the edit count) as opposed to one edit to cover it all. Otr500 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, your discussion of Tutahaco. The tug was the only vessel with the name in the Navy so the hull numbers are not useful for disambiguation and useless in the title. I'd recommend simply "Tutahaco (tug)" for a title with redirects created to cover the "USS" and hull numbers. Then, since the DANFS for Tutahaco is just two short sentences I'd have to ask how this small vessel meets notability requirements here. For ships we have a presumed notability, challenged by some outside the ships group, for larger naval vessels in particular, but an "in service" yard craft with nothing beyond it was built and served 30 some years in the 10th Naval District? Unless you have considerably more about an "afterlife" that makes the tug notable you can expect a challenge on that. As for name format I personally prefer the name of the ship followed by "(ship)" instead of SS/MV and all the other options (some of which 99% or readers would not recognize) with the launch date as final disambiguator when necessary. A proposal to drop all the internal naval administrative notations of hull/pennant numbers dissolved without resolution, though the majority seemed to lean toward the change to ship name and launch year.
There are plenty of vessels not built for the Navy for which the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships has either little or even erroneous information about those prior years and more than a few with very little about post Navy days. Where DANFS has definite scrapping information, company and date, it is usually pretty accurate. Where that is sketchy you often find they did no real tracking after disposal by Navy. In the post WW II/Korea world leading to the first hard copy publication there were lots of Navy people, including reserves, available to work with The Histories Branch digging through Navy's records and they produced most of what is now on line that is just a copy of those many volumes of thick books. Now, with severely limited personnel (drastuc budget cuts) their hopes of revising some with up to date information is at best crawling along. In any case, Navy's interest in the ships is the Naval service, not prior or post Navy history so they have little or no time to dig into other sources to fill that out. Palmeira (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should say that, while I very much respect Palmeira's contributions to the topic area, I disagree with some of his views, such that some DANFS ships are not sufficiently notable to be included on Wikipedia, that we should use the format "Shipname (ship)" instead of "SS/MV/whatever shipname", or drop the "USS" or hull numbers and so on. So you should not necessarily assume Otr that the views of one user (including my own) are necessarily reflective of the project as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just my opinion, well supported in reliable and professional references. Wikipedia is to some extent creating its own little pocket of ship lore here—yet it is supposed to reflect reliable sources. No, "USS" and a hull number is not part of a ship's name—and that is in accord with the people that bestow those names and designations. Attaching USS to a ship never in commission is just flat wrong and an indicator of ignorance of what the term even means. By the way, that issue was decided here years ago. You can disagree, but it is a bit like disagreeing with the U.S. House of Representatives on who is or is not a member or with a company on its corporate name. They are the deciding authority, not us. As for "Shipname (ship)" for titles I'm not particularly fond of it. I find the standard, widely used SS, MV and such useful there. I do object to the constant addition of obscure prefixes every time someone runs into some use somewhere of some new thing. Pretty soon we will probably see RHAVDV (red hulled autonomous vehicle deployment vessel) as a prefix! If I recall the closure of the "name (year)" was trending toward that despite your and other's objections. I think reopening with a definite proposed new policy text might carry the day and get us out of what is something of an unprofessional fix. My view, and one I will stand by, is that anyone contributing here owes it to the reader to learn enough about these things to at least be accurate in the clear basics. We can all get into a mess with things such as tonnages and dimensions where different methods are used, but what composes a ship's name is a basic. Palmeira (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I supported the change to "Shipname (year)", as I'm inclined to agree that in many cases that is the most useful identifier. Given that this has not been adopted, however, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be dropping hull numbers from individual articles, because that will lead to inconsistency.
You are of course correct that "USS" should not be used for uncommissioned ships, but the status of some ships isn't always clear. If DANFS says a ship was never commissioned, it's fine to leave the "USS" off, but should we do the same for ships that simply don't mention a commission date? That's a more difficult question to answer. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think hull numbers in the title are misleading and help cause readers without much Navy knowledge to conclude they are part of the name. I also think they "got there" because a lot of editors thought they were being "naval" when in reality they knew just enough to be misleading. Anyway, they are there in so many titles and a fix would be a long and tedious process. I keep considering reopening the proposal with a definite markup of the changes needed, the lack of which that other time seemed to be an issue. Then I'd rather flesh out the vast backlog of ships with histories that are so neglected beyond DANFS or without any naval service at all. I do try to make clear in any edits I do that classification and hull number changes are administrative only—as does DANFS is one reads closely.
On your second comment and question I think one has to understand why the U.S.N. is so in to ship histories even for minor little craft. First it is a love of the things that make a navy a navy. The other reason, and the one that makes sense of "commissioned 14 August 1944, Comdr. Marion C. Thompson in command" for an obscure, not particularly notable transport is the difference between Navy and Army view of ships. No stars ever fell on an Army officer for "command of a ship" and none fell on Navy line officers without command of a ship in commission until perhaps some Airdales made it in fairly recent times. NHC/NHHC is very careful to record that commissioning if it took place and I've run into only one or two ship histories, turn of the 20th Century period, where DANFS "cannot find a record" or is doubtful. The whole commissioning thing is deeply tied up with advancement in Navy and thus very important to record. Any officer noted as in command of a ship between that initial commissioning and the decommissioning date punched an important ticket. Those in command of a ship "in service," such as some ex-USS serving as training or service force, got no such punch and were either on the way out or very junior getting a little punch. The vast number of types that were never commissioned, with some very rare exceptions, such as anything with a "Y" hull number were "commanded" by noncoms or sometimes warrant officers. If the official ship history does not mention "commissioned/decommissioned" or explicit doubt (a very few) the ship was likely as a snowball in hell of being commissioned. Palmeira (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually some valid arguments for retaining hull numbers - for one thing, they readily identify the ship type in a way that launch dates do not. And while it's certainly true that a ship's hull number can change, in most cases the most historically significant service will occur under a given hull number. On the other hand, pennant numbers on British capital ships make for pretty obscure identifiers when dates would be much more informative. So it's a bit of a mixed bag (as these things often tend to be). There are a couple of arguments however that I don't think were canvassed last time. Firstly, what happens to ship referrals in actual articles if we moved to year identifiers? I think it important that hull numbers be retained as identifiers within articles as it instantly identifies the type of ship without the need for clicking on the link, but arguably moving to year identifiers would discourage that practice. Secondly, I think we would have to rewrite all the ship templates so they could include both hull/pennant numbers and year dates - a year date to identify the article, and hull/pennant number for display, for example, which could get quite messy. These are just some additional issues that might need to be considered.
Regarding the commissioning issue - your analysis sounds well informed and sensible, though I have no idea how accurate it might be. I'm still not fully convinced that leaving "USS" off articles that don't mention a commission date would be appropriate (for one thing, we refer to all USN commissioned ships as "USS" even though the prefix wasn't actually adopted until 1907) so again, the issue is not necessarily as straightforward as it might first appear, but certainly, you make a worthwhile point. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issues you raise about the scope of changes required to move from hull numbers as a means of distinguishing ships in links and titles are certainly valid. I am not sure that good redirects cannot take care of text within articles that identify a ship by name and hull number. The templates might well become a mess. As for hull number identifying "type" that is true to an extent but two points. First most readers have no idea what ARC means or what the hell is going on when a CVE becomes CVU and then AKV. Until they get down in the article for some explanation those are mysteries. Second, since classifications are about how the Navy sees the function of a particular hull the same "type" ship can have completely different classifications, particularly among the auxiliaries where modifications for a purpose may or may not be visible (ATF vs same hull as AGS or precisely how LPD differs in "type" to the eye from the same ship as AGF (we might, but most readers would not notice certain indicators of function without pointers). Unless one goes aboard and sees some odd equipment for a tug even a practiced eye can be fooled. On the flip side, long, long ago one of my ships and all of us aboard got continual grief at a remote island base. We looked like a cargo ship to everybody, even the base officers (except one or two did notice some odd antennas) and, yes, our hull designation could be for a cargo something. We were just vast empty holds except for part of two, and no, we did need supplies even if we'd brought nothing for the base and, no, visitors were not allowed and we could not say why we were there. At one point we were refused drinks and meals at the clubs and use of the exchange because we'd not brought anything. Externally and in all ways internally, until one went deep inside behind locked watertight doors, that ship looked like a cargo ship. No "reclassification" ever took place.
Indeed, USS is fairly modern if we go back to sail, but the Navy is pretty sticky on that and whether you take my word for it or not, if DANFS does not mention a commissioning it is that snowball in hell thing, possible but highly unlikely. There was an odd period, before and during WW I, when a few of many little SP and Y vessels got commissioned. USS Powhatan is one of those oddities. Attaching USS to Asp is ridiculous and even having an article about a motorboat seems a bit much. May as well have "articles" on Army trucks; then Army did not keep such loving records of such equipment. Navy just loves what floats! Palmeira (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been observing things ---to learn the basics--- and there appears to be organized disorganization at best. I am not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation without reason yet I do see a good reason to use ship name (year). However, before we go on a crusade of "fixing" something that is not actually "broken" because one or two editors do not like something, even if there has pretty sound reasoning, so I must be satisfied there is broad consensus. My reasoning is simple. Swapping (year) for (hull number) just for the sake of it, because one does not like hull numbers on articles, that are already on "many" articles, would be pointless. Add to that the fact that the hull numbers, on ships that use them, do not actually do any harm and, considering ("all things Navy") we have DANFS that is the authority, most of the times the only source, and they do use them for identification, so someone would have to present pretty logical reasoning why swapping one parenthetical disambiguation for yet another, would be beneficial.
I am not going to go against change, just will not support a wholesale bunch of moves just to give editors yet something else to do. A better pastime would be to find references and actually edit articles. I am not implying that any involved don't edit or try to do things other than that, as I don't look at inflated edit count's or even editors use of time. I have seen too many projects (at least three so far) where editors jump on a band wagon of "changing things" just to "change things", starting a whole lot of stubs that will likely remain unimproved, some for 9 to 11 years now, so we probably could have done without them. Then I have seen possible good intentions go awry. "ALL" articles on Wikipedia do not have to be exactly the same. We can start by effecting change with edits. Stub or start articles that are being expanded (ahhh constructive editing) can be looked at to see "IF" a change is better. I would have to consider if the United States Navy|Enterprise ship articles, all eight and at a point nine, would benefit from all being replaced with USS Enterprise (year), that would match earlier ships, or if they are alright like they are. The mentioned "titles" (Mr. and Mrs) are respectful titles. Doctor (Dr.) is an earned title, and some titles are certainly honorific. With all the current lifestyles changing concerning gender-identity, it is almost an insult to try to be respectful. I found it amazing that humans were actually not born male or female but assigned a sex after being born.
Please look at it this way. A person's ignorance about a certain subject (Navy ships) just means they can go to a good encyclopedia and "learn" so being. I do not totally agree about DANFS being the only one looking at numbers. I have seen sources use the hull numbers also and it is a very clear indication that the ship found with matching hull numbers, is the same ship listed on DANSF. Once again, I am not objecting to exploring a change just that a new mass "change sub-project" offers me no reason for support. Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say, but here is an attempt to clarify some points I think you are making.
(1) There was a consensus emerging that "name (year)" was the way to go, partly because some ships had many hull numbers over a lifetime. Hull numbers change as the Navy sees the ship's function change or the mission change. Reclassification is a purely administrative thing within Navy and can result in massive hull number changes for whole types. Deciding which of several hull numbers best represents a ship for disambiguation is one of those opinion/decision things that can be a mess.
(2) You are mistaken on DANFS using hull numbers in titles. That is beginning to crop up in the new version of on-line DANFS where navigation is still a mess (and they may begin having problems picking the "right" one for search purposes), but the print version and the previous on-line versions only mention hull numbers in connection with those administrative changes. I don't even know what to make of what I found on NHHC's DANFS navigation page when I was going to use Enterprise VIII! Good grief! Aside from having to select the EN group and clicking through pages I see there are nine pages for that ship! They've decided to split one ship's history into nine DANFS entries. That is why, though the authority on a ship's history, I'm not sure their indexing is a worthy example.
(3) A mass change may not be worth the effort, but an incremental one as articles are edited may be worth doing. I am at the moment, with a detour into the United States Shipping Board that was woefully inadequate for the number of references to it and its role at the time, working the EFC Design 1029 ships, some becoming attack transports. All those ships had fairly significant commercial roles before becoming Navy ships, but in rewrites I'm actually following DANFS practice. Instead of Leonard Wood (AP-25) being "renamed" or "becoming" Leonard Wood (AP-25) as some articles might have it she just got reclassified APA-12. At some point, weeks probably, some new paint got applied.
With the exception of completely erroneous and blatantly incorrect usage of USS for ships never in commission I generally don't much care, particularly if a ship only had one classification and hull number. I'd lot rather spend my time adding new stuff, particularly for those ships that have significant commercial history ignored. By the way, one reason I'm interested in those WW I era ships is what they reveal about the U.S. maritime position, shipbuilding state and politics. When those "502s" (Design 1095) and "535s" (Design 1029) ships hit the Pacific coast in the 1920s they gave the U.S. flag a place in transpacific trade it had surrendered to the Japanese and British. The impact was interesting and also rather sad because the Great Depression wrecked things again and we had to start the next war act again desperately short of hulls. Somewhere I've a Congressional hearing transcript noting we have not been a maritime nation since the Civil War. The center of interest shifted to the interior and only the coasts retained a vague hint of maritime vigor, but they couldn't get enough support to compete against Britain and Japan in particular. In that USSB revision: "just over 10% of the value of trade carried in U.S. owned ships"! Palmeira (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Palmeira, Thank you for your reply but in the future, so as to avoid possible contention, please, if you "misunderstand" something, it is far easier to ask for clarification on any "missed points" than to make it appear that you did not hear me concerning my entire comments, yet attempt to "interpret" what you "think" I am trying to state, and clarifying it. I can understand that you might not be be clear on one or more points but that would be too easy to rectify. You stated to me "You are mistaken on DANFS using hull numbers in titles", when I stated "they do use them for identification", but I didn't state "titles". Where the Navy provides numbers DANFS does (usually as far as I can see) provide these.
Of course the US Navy uses hull numbers (HID's) to uniquely identify a particular ship. This number will change upon a ship's reclassification (most times sequential), and we have to decide how to deal with this. DANFS certainly makes mistakes and I am sure the US Navy does, and you provided reasoning above, but the information they post (mistakes notwithstanding) comes from US Navy records. "IF" there are mistakes from the top they will trickle down, but we can not condemn an an entire system on exceptions. Your argument against using hull numbers seems to imply that DANFS is now unreliable as as source? If not, and a US ship is reclassified, then a good practice would be to follow a reliable source and rename the article or at least denote this at first instance in the lead. I am sure you will find errors, but you appear to be thorough in your research (sorting out certain messes), so I have no doubt you will be able to flesh out any discrepancies.
I am glad you agree with me being against "mass moves", except changes with edits. I support a change of any article using USS when involving a ship never commissioned as does user: Gatoclass. I also support any move involving parenthetical disambiguation (hull number) to (year) where this would reduce or minimize a known error or be otherwise beneficial. If there is another reason to support a change to ship (year) over ship (hull number) please let me know as I am open to discussion as long as my translator button is not broke. Otr500 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be "misunderstanding" you, but you are apparently misunderstanding me. Of course DANFS mentions hull numbers in the articles as reclassifications. Always have. It did not use them in titles or in the previous on-line indices (I've still got old copies of the print version I used to help get it on-line a couple of decades ago). Only recently, after NHHC underwent a massive rework of its site that still has not "recovered" information that was once there and the cause of all the 404 errors for DANFS links here, have hull numbers shown up in either the navigation page or the titles of histories. No, DANFS is not unreliable, though it occasionally has mistakes when dealing with ships Navy took into service. It has become a mess to navigate after that change and if you knew the old system you would see that.
Before that total site change the DANFS index pages involved no "< 1 2 3 4 5 >" after a letter combination. You got a list of ship names with direct links. One could also go back and forth from a ship, if wrong, to the index so that if you were looking for NAME III and got NAME IV (that was how the old DANFS distinguished names) it was one click back and one to the other history. Now you had better right click because there is no "going back" to the listing cluttered by anchor symbols. Not an improvement at all, but I'm getting a hint of "security" as the cause for all the delinking. Now, possibly as a result of complaints (they apparently got quite a few), they are making some changes in those navigation pages—one of which seems to be the addition of hull numbers. That may get them into the same issue I see here: "Granddaddy served on Name hull# but I don't see that in the list!"—because the period granddaddy served was not the "most significant" or "longest" with that hull number.
And that is the key to "our problem" where most readers probably come here looking for some family association or reading some fairly non technical thing involving the ships and are neither ship nor Navy students. How does Wikipedia get such a reader to the ship of their interest when so many names were recycled? We need a disambiguator for the internal system, not the reader for whom hull numbers are perhaps a mystery. We may instantly recognize and know what they indicate, but I'd guess the vast majority or readers have little clue. The average reader knows a name, the year granddaddy served or the action took place and, maybe one hull number if reading a naval history. What they probably need to find the ship is a simple list of names and dates. What the system needs is a unique tag for the page and we know that one ship may have more than one or even two hull numbers so they are not a single tag for the ship. Ships only get launched once, despite maybe getting "refloated" after yard periods (some editor argued that), so it is a better system tag connect index and redirect pages to the correct page.
Exact launch dates for commercial ships, particularly old ones, take considerable digging into old government reports, industry journals and sometimes news reports. Navy and DANFS does really well on those dates for Navy built ships, with Navy further making sure no two ships bore the same name at the same time, and for most WW II and postwar commercial type hulls. If we are looking for a unique title tag for searches the launch year is singular, almost always precise (though rarely two commercial ships of the same name were launched somewhere in the world the same year). Hull numbers are subject to editorial judgement (She fought the big battle as XXX-15! Her most newsworthy, most references were as XXY-15! No, she served 12 of 20 years as XXZ-15!) and carefully done redirect pages. Of all the options launch date is as close to a single link tag for ships of the same name as we will get. If we began listing our U.S.N. ship indices with name and inclusive years, launch-disposal readers would know which ship to target off the bat. Palmeira (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

The Vadne (ferry) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demerliac help available

Hello,

Wikimedia France has provided me with the complete collection of Demerliac numenclature of French ships from 1610 to 1871 [1]. They contain basic data on virtually all ships afloat at these times (warships, privateers, East indiamen, merchantmen, fishing and whalers, etc.). Do not hesitate to ask me if I can be of any help with this ressource.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) PS: If you can forward this annoucement to Wikipedias in a language that I do not speak, or to other interested projets of which I have not thought, I would be grateful. Rama (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate, unused, or rarely used ship prefix templates

We have {{barge}} and {{tugboat}}. Why? {{barge}} is not used in article space. {{tugboat}} is used in three articles where all three instances refer to one tugboat article. Both of these templates semantically misuse the prefix template form.

Is there any reason to keep? If not then I propose to subst the instances of {{tugboat}} either with standard wiki markup or with {{ship}} which can accomplish the same thing:

{{Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
Template:Tugboat
{{ship|Tugboat|Trabajador|1931}}
Tugboat Trabajador (1931)

(that article should probably be moved to Trabajador – no need for either form of disambiguation)

We can take these templates to TfD or simply delete them. Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they can't be deleted if there is consensus here. I would support such deletion.
As for Trabajador, as a diesel powered tug the correct title would be MV Trabajador (1931). Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, no more unnecessary prefixes. Not one of the sources refers to the tug as "MV" nor does Google produce a single example related to this vessel; and why the year dab? There aren't any others on here. Davidships (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could add MV to the disambiguation's to have Tugboat MV Trabajador (1931) or MV Trabajador (1931 tugboat) ? Not sure if that helps but for those that love unnecessary disambiguation it would be Christmas. Otr500 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say just delete them; I also see no need for the MV prefix if it's not used in any RSs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of ship naming conventions in progress

Following the conclusion of the ship article titles RFC over four months ago (which was abandoned, bot-archived, then closed with a consensus for the broad idea but no consensus on the specifics or the implementation), the lack of action since, and the ongoing complaining about the issue, I am commencing a draft of proposed ship naming conventions to satisfy the consensus achieved in the RFC. -- saberwyn 02:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to draft work: User:Saberwyn/WP Ship naming and disambiguation conventions — Huntster (t @ c) 17:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's ok to write comments and proposals to the draft's talk page? Tupsumato (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. I'm trying to draft this based on what appears to me to be the most popular idea(s), based on the RFC and other recent discussions. If people want to argue their own preferences, peeves, or personal interpretations, it can wait until I have something that can be published as a proposed replacement to the existing guideline. -- saberwyn 11:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we should wait until "your" ideas, based on "your" interpretation of popular ideas, what I feel is a somewhat tainted RFC, and other discussions, are presented as proposed policy, then argue for change. I am not sure I like your idea of collaboration. I might suggest Power point or Word as a beginning to avoid input from others.
Now I think (had an edit conflict) that all the below will be just "fighting against the wind", so I might have to just fight this whole idea. Anyway, the following was my comments before the edit conflict. Not that it will mean anything.
I am going to be a fierce opponent if there is not changes to the wording about "Pennant/hull numbers are not part of the official or common name of a ship on Wikipedia.".
First there is the drive to push that hull numbers were reused, leading to the noted AFC closing including, "that hull numbers are often reused", and that hull numbers are "...completely useless to helping our readers.", and these are absolutely false as a whole. Before some "ship (year)" proponent jumps on this please be aware I stated "as a whole". I was assured that DANFS is a reliable source. "IF" that is true and "IF" an article, usually a stub but I see almost total histories copied as an article sometimes just sectioned and sub-sectioned, then "IF" DANSF is used as an only source, or Naval History and Heritage Command, and these sources use hull numbers then there is a vain argument. Surely this makes sense and a reason there are opponents to a blanket project mandated change to "ship (year)". There is not one person here that will not have problems convincing others that a source is reliable, but only part of it, so we must selectively choose the reliable part and exclude what is not, if the naming from the source specifically identifies the subject that was used as an article title. This may be reasoning why repeated attempts at change has ended in failure to obtain consensus. So we say it is not unreliable but does not help. Come on! If the article name agrees with the source then use links, redirects, and all the other Wikipedia weapons to ensure ease of navigation.
  • I have advocated that I support "ship (year)" when warranted. I just have a common sense issue with someone trying to convince me that a source, that uses "ship (hull number) does not help readers when it is the "ONLY" source. Any problems with this and hull numbers being changed when a ship is re-designation by reclassification (not the same as reusing), can be addressed in several ways.
My problem is repeated project drives to make change, in the guise of improvements, that ultimately just results in mass renaming sub-projects. Convince me that "Let's mass change change from a title "ship (hull number)" that has a source to enforce the name, to "ship (year), that excludes the source name, will actually be a benefit to my grandson looking for a ship my father served on.
NOW! Since I am not against "ship (year) I would suggest;
  • 1)- Stop making it appear a project is being hi-jacked with mandated changes as a reason to start mass renaming. Alright, maybe that is not the actual intent but attempted mass changes will be a result.
  • 2)- Add that the hull numbers (that have a source for references) "need" to be in the lead as an alternate name for research continuity per policy that will stop implying the source is not reliable. This means as close to the article lead naming as possible and not buried in the middle of the 4th paragraph, and
  • 3)- Advocate that we do not need a new renaming sub-project to correct some "wrong" that is simply not "wrong", just maybe not the best. Make "pennant/hull numbers" a subsection and not buried in the middle to be wikilawyered.
Can someone show me examples where ship hull numbers were "reused" on different ships (a hull number on one ship being used on a different ship) and where this is wide-spread to cause confusion, so I can better deduce a clear need for change from that reasoning?
By-the-way, the proposal, without relevant subsections, is not an improvement and will just create confusion. I think you may find more support, less failed attempts, and generally less fighting, as many don't support "mandated" project changes that might be against article consensus or reliable source, by implementing the above.
An alternate could include convincing me, without attacks, rhetoric, or flimsy reasoning, the "main" benefits of "ship (year)" over "ship (hull number)" that is more than nonsensical "searching for my grandfather's ship" reasoning". This will still not prevent me, assuming we have change, from wanting hull numbers used as alternate naming, especially on source specific naming. I commented here instead of the proposed naming convention to get a better idea concerning my opinions before further comments and I hope they are fruitful but my faith is slightly wavering. Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: The biggest advantage of using "ship (year)" is that it is something that does not change over the lifetime of the ship. As has been demonstrated, pennant numbers are liable to change. It is accepted that ship names change too, but the year of launch (or month and year of launch / builder and year of launch) are constant. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Alright, and as far as I can tell that is correct and previously stated. A few more things and we will be making progress. I am not trying to be difficult but practicality has got to trump change just for change. Guess we will have to see? Otr500 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the convention "Ship names should be italicised" be changed to "Ship names must be italicised", to give clear direction. Newm30 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Newm30: how about "Ship names are always italicised"? Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Sounds good. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look again but a quick read of the existing proposal looks as if it would help bring Wikipedia into alignment with naval practice ("Ship Naming in the United States Navy" for one) and actual usage in professional works and industry journals. I think it would be a definite improvement in guidance and effective as long as we have thorough index pages and redirects for terms under which average readers will search.
With regard to indices and redirects, after decades of ship research and helping people finding details on ships, finding "my dad's ship" is firmly based on near daily requests (peaking with the big WW II flurry of events and books) in which overall 75% had a name and maybe an incident from a diary or other record and nothing else. From experience culling through official records, published sources and such to help I can say it is important to have finding aids with inclusive dates and even hull or pennant numbers for those dates in some form so as to pin down a vague request to a specific vessel in time and place. Perhaps that could be done in the ship name disambiguation pages as a standard practice with a simple textual accounting of inclusive dates for any documented prefix/suffix changes. We would need to do the same for the fairly frequent propulsion changes as when commercial steam powered vessels were refitted with diesels (SS>MS). Palmeira (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: For sailing vessels, can we include preferred naming convention, e.g. Minerva (1773 ship) rather than Minerva (1773) which could confuse reader. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

automatic ship name formatting

We have automatic ship name formatting. We have it in {{infobox ship begin}} where it controls formatting for article titles and for the infobox caption and also in {{navsource}} where the template takes the article title or an unformatted string and formats the ship name correctly. Well, mostly correctly. In the past week I discovered that {{navsource}} was choking on this string: 'USS LSM(R)-190'. {{navsource}} renders it like this:

{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM(R)-190}}
Photo gallery of USS LSM(R)-190 at NavSource Naval History

to make the ship name render correctly, I did this:

{{navsource|10/06/06190|USS LSM&#40;R&#41;-190}}
Photo gallery of USS LSM(R)-190 at NavSource Naval History

We shouldn't have to do that.

So, I set about finding a solution. The result of my search is Module:WPSHIPS utilities. Why a module? Because Lua is a much more powerful and flexible tool for doing stuff like ship name formatting. Right now, the code only takes one parameter, the ship name; that could change. Because it is early days, the code is not implemented anywhere yet. Here it is for HMS Victory:

{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=HMS Victory}}
HMS Victory – prefix and name

for USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659):

USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) – prefix, name, and parenthetical disambiguation

and the problematic one:

USS LSM(R)-190

One of the long-standing weaknesses of the automatic name formatting as it exists now is the inability to automatically format names for ships in navies that do not use standardized prefixes. This new tool will do that kind of name too:

{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=German battleship Bismarck}}
German battleship Bismarck
French cruiser Jeanne d'Arc (R97)
Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12)

I have added a call to this code to {{infobox ship begin/sandbox}} so that you can experiment with your favorite ship article. To do so, simply comment out (with <!-- -->) or remove, {{italic title}} or {{italic title prefixed}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} and then change {{infobox ship begin}} to {{infobox ship begin/sandbox}} and click Show preview. Or, simply try your favorite ship names in the invocation. Here's a blank one:

{{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=}}

Please do this. The code depends on a list of nationalities and a list of ship types. These lists are very incomplete. If you find ship types or nationalities that don't work, it is probably because they are not listed. Feel free to add to the lists. There are instructions on how to do this in the module. Or, leave me a note here and I'll do the work.

The items in the ship types list are limited to one or two words (you could use more words but the results might not be what you expect). This covers the usual cases of 'battleship' and 'aircraft carrier'. Are there ship types used in article titles that are three words or more? Similarly, nationalities are limited to one word. Are there nationalities used in ship article titles that are two words or more?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some ship articles, icebreakers and clippers, for example, are disambiguated as <ship name> (<ship type>). The tool supports this style:

  • Ocean Telegraph / Light Brigade (clipper)
  • Murtaja (1890 icebreaker)
  • Lenin (nuclear icebreaker)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another weakness is automatic name formatting for ship-class articles. I'm sure that part of the problem with that is that there are two formats: Italicized-class title and Roman-class title. There are also lingering article titles that are not yet hyphenated as they should be.

To more-or-less automate ship-class formatting, I have assumed that the default case is italicized. So, without any editor intervention, titles in the form <name>-class <ship type> will render:

  • Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler

If the class name is not in the adjectival (hyphenated) form, the tool does nothing:

  • {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura class transport oiler}}
    • Mission Buenaventura class transport oiler

Because there are two styles of ship-class title, a way must be found to indicate to the tool that a particular title is not to be italicized. It is not possible to know by inspection that the title is or is not to be italicized. We can modify {{infobox ship begin}} to take a parameter, |sclass=2 which is passed along to the formatting tool:

  • {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |sclass=2}}
    • Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler
(this parameter gets its name from {{sclass2}} which renders properly formatted, non-italicized links to ship-class articles)

For those articles that provide an infobox caption, it is appropriate to use the class' noun form for the caption. For that, |adj=off:

  • {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=Mission Buenaventura-class transport oiler |adj=off}}
    • Mission Buenaventura class

We can modify how {{infobox ship begin}} handles |infobox caption=yes to invoke this functionality.

I have made these last two changes to {{infobox ship begin/sandbox}}. Because it it used on fewer pages, and because the code supporting it is more complex, I am going to move the |info box caption= changes to the live infobox with the display title change to follow in a day or two. If you see anything obviously bad, feel free to revert. Do post a note here explaining what, where, and why, please.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic formatting now supports:

<name> <(disambiguator)> where:
<(disambiguator)> is a hull of pennant number that is made up of:
uppercase letters followed by optional hyphen or space followed by digits (R07, ON 688, YTB-760)
digits followed by optional hyphen or space followed by uppercase letters (401B)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Topic candidate needs more reviews

Hi all, if you have the time, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Italy/archive1 and post your thoughts? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sobraon (ship) = HMAS Tingira

A couple of days ago the article Sobraon (ship) was created. It is on the same subject as HMAS Tingira, but the creator of the Sobraon article appears to argue that the Tingira article is flawed and inaccurate and that a second article on the ship is therefore needed. It seems that the creator of the Sobraon article is also the author of the book used as the main source for that article.

What to do? I don't think we should have two articles on the same ship. The creator of the Sobraon article has opposed a deletion of the article. Manxruler (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there is sufficient volume of content surrounding the ship's history to justify multiple articles on the subject, particularly 'split' as proposed along the lines of "navy career, including entire history" and "entire history, including navy career". Normally, I'd suggest merging together at what is the best known name (at the moment, HMAS Tingira is used because the vast majority of sources used refer to the ship by that name and emphasise that aspect of the history).
The big red flag, however, is that the source the Sobraon article relies almost 100% on, Commanders of Sail, appears to be a WP:self-published source. It is from an author who (as far as Trove can tell) has never published anything else in the field of maritime history, so cannot be considered an expert in the field. By the article editor's own admission, the book contradicts a variety of published sources, which have been authored by established experts, published by reputable publishing companies or organisations, and otherwise proven to be reliable. -- saberwyn 22:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think there's enough for two articles on the same ship either. There very rarely is. Your findings regarding the source of the new article lead me to concur with you that a merge isn't the way to go. A redirect should do, then. Manxruler (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cut/paste moves

User:Pennsy22 has made several cut-and-paste moves of several ship articles in the past few days. I reverted the one that was on my watchlist, but I'm trying to go to sleep now, so I don't need to try to revert these moves myself. I don't currently have an opinion on whether or not the page names should be changed, just that it shouldn't be by cut-and-paste. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an hour or so and I'll take care of them (unless someone else gets there first). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got one. There's also some category additions which might be problematical - adding a cat that the article is already in a subcat of (don't know the 'proper' word for that addition). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=680374557"