User talk:Lyndaship/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DYK for French submarine Armide

On 20 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article French submarine Armide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the French-built Japanese submarine No. 14 was requisitioned by France and commissioned into its navy as Armide, the Japanese built their own No. 14 to the same design? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/French submarine Armide. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, French submarine Armide), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Extensive revisions described as "copy edit"

I noticed that on a few cruise ship pages recently you have been removing substantial amounts of content with the tag "copy edit". From my understanding, copy editing refers to small changes to things like wording and punctuation in order for for an article to meet a certain style. What you are doing is content editing, not copy editing, and you ought to explain your reasons for removing substantial amounts of content from an article, on either the talk page or the edit summary. Only putting "copy edit" as an edit summary is very unhelpful in cases where you substantially change the content of an article. Whitevelcro (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well we differ on what copy editing is. The link you provided has a section called Content editing which I would claim was exactly what I was doing. However WP:COPYEDIT is more along your views as to what a copyedit is but as with all policies it seems to offer something for everyone in that it talks about the 5 C's right at the outset and one is concise. The point here though is that you are not so much aggrieved with how I label my edit but what I have edited. Rather than simply reverting the edit in toto with a tart comment perhaps you could review what I have done, I changed the claim that she was launched (christened) in 1990 to formally named, she was launched in 1988, I removed the statement that she is the oldest vessel in Carnivals fleet - so what and its transient, I see no point in doing it as at 2019, I removed all the corporate guff about evolutions of fun and fun ship substituting the bland word refurbishment and consolidated the incomplete cruising information into a general statement of area of operations - its not an encyclopedias job to market a ships trips or to give a detailed history of them. I am of course happy to discuss my changes on the articles talk page Lyndaship (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are doing. I think your changes are quite worthwhile and make the page more readable in most cases, and definitely in a lot of cases remove the more marketing-ey sections of pages. However, after reviewing WP:COPYEDIT also, I can say that most of the changes I am talking about were more extensive than copy editing. The "removing redundant words or phrases" in copy editing is basically referring to doing this within sentences for style, not changing the meaning or removing any information. Copy editing is improving the style and readability of the article by making minor changes (like changing "The Fantasy" to "She").

I think it would be better if you described these edits something like "removed unnecessary information and corporate jargon", or even better if you would describe in your summary the specific things you removed. So for the previous example, perhaps you could put something like "Summarized history of ship, removed corporate guff about "Fun Ship 2.0", and copy edited" (you did also make a couple of copy edits in that specific edit).

I do think some of the information you remove might be useful to keep, but discussing whether specific bits of information should be removed belongs in the talk page for the specific articles, not here. I'm mainly just asking that you are more descriptive in your edit summaries if you are removing information from an article, and not just changing individual words or phrases for clarity. That gives a good starting point for discussion and lets people who come later understand what you removed and why, and also how to best support your efforts to make pages cleaner and better written.

Regardless of whether you agree with my understanding of copy editing, including more information about your edits will help everyone who is trying to understand them and alleviate conflict.Whitevelcro (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I accept your point that I could be more detailed in my edit summaries but I still hold that merely saying copy edit is not wrong or duplicitous, maybe we could agree I should use major copy edit or major copy revision? I usually start at the top and work through an article changing, moving and removing as I go, sometimes this takes so many preview attempts I would be likely to forget every bit I had done something on to mention in the summary. As you rightly say individual changes should be discussed on the relevant talk page and sadly of course the appropriate policies differ on whose responsibility it is to start a discussion, WP:BRD makes it the person who has been reverted, WP:ONUS makes it the burden of the party who wants anything included in an article to establish consensus on the talk page first. However to start things off I will open a thread. Lyndaship (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Vance charter

That's how it is in the source. I don't object to it being changed but that's how it was written. Inspectortrixie (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I checked the source too and chuckled. However googling I now see that it is not a faux pas and the term is sometimes (if rarely) used - I had never come across it before. Therefore I will revert if you want but personally I prefer the common term Lyndaship (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I misread your comment, that's my fault. I know it's a weird turn of phrase but copied it over because why not. It's fine now! No reversion needed! Thanks for your editing; I've changed my template so hopefully fewer changes will be needed in the future.Inspectortrixie (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ship

Read the grammar of text... The ship was hotel in Dubai, since 2016 it was broken in Alang, it really does not exist but text impose the contrary. The knowledge does not need a Souce, because a picture of her on beach is enough. I really do not care about the immense errors in this encyclopedia, keep the error and be happy, it is just one more among thousand. Made my try, but people like you prefer errors here. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.14.250 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Harmony of the Seas

I am not sure why my edit was removed by you entirely, twice. It is properly sourced. Could you elaborate? Zepher1 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my initial edit it is WP:UNDUE. The death of one individual in an accident is not significant in the history of the ship. Compare a town article, would you expect to see every person who had died mentioned in it? Lyndaship (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I don't quite agree. A death on a the ship that isn't of natural causes is extremely rare and fits in with the other incidents. I was surprised it wasn't there already. The other incidents only involved 1 or up to 5 people. I agree a town page should not have it listed but I think a cruise-liner is a different story. Zepher1 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Having Boldly added this information and been reverted you should now solicit other editors opinions by posting on the article talk page to obtain consensus for inclusion per [WP:ONUS]. Lyndaship (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

As a new user, my intent was not to boldly re-add something. Not to warrant reprimands on my talk page... All I saw was "Undue" and that made no sense because it was 100% inline with other incidents on this page and others I am familiar with as a frequent visitor and written correctly. More detail on undue was not easy to locate. The layout of wikipedia is kind of cumbersome and outdated. Zepher1 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh I agree, Wikipedia's layout, rules, conventions and policies are not the easiest to follow - its all there somewhere but finding just where can be a nightmare. Please don't consider the 3RR notice I posted on your talk page a reprimand, quite simply as a new user you were unlikely to be aware of this policy and if another editor reverted you subsequent to my reversions and you did likewise you would have been in breach of a policy you did not know of and would likely have been blocked by an admin for a short period. I see you have now opened as thread on the talk page and I will reply there Lyndaship (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Warspite battle honours

Thanks for letting me know - I have made a contribution that references both the WP article on battle honours (which includes a section on naval honours that explicitly states, with reference, that honours awarded are inherited by future ships of the same name), and includes a link to a specific honours board.Hammersfan (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

AWB

Hi Lyndaship

Please do not use WP:AWB to create errors on particles, as you did in this edit[1] to USS Hunt (DD-194).

It seems that you were using a replace function which was way too simple, and didn't check your output.

I have reverted your edit, but please carefully check your contibutions to ensure that there were no other glitches like that.

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just apologised on your talk page and now checking other edits Lyndaship (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SS Delphic

Hi

Why have you moved the article on the second Delphic from SS Delphic (1918) to SS Delphic (1925)? The ship was launched in 1918 and I understood that was the criterion for dating the article, ship names come and go. There is an argument that the article could be titled SS Glen Farquhar as that was the name she carried longest. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Dab by first year of name when there are multiple vessels with that name. If you use launch dates you create a false or duplicate record suggesting two ships could exist at the same time with the same name. There have been 3 Delphics none of which qualifies as common name and the page SS Delphic should be the Ship Index. The template for White Star ships was already correctly set up for 1925. I would have no objection if you wanted the article at Clan (not Glen) Farquhar but the dab should be 1933 Lyndaship (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Take care with rollback/twinkle

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383 please do take care not to revert any good faith edits without leaving a suitable edit summary. There is more detail at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thank you for your continued efforts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Could I ask you to review my edit? I gave the edit summary "Stop edit warring" which the other party was clearly doing and had been reported for. Lyndaship (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay but that is not a sufficient rationale. You have to believe that the edit was bad and you should explain what was wrong with it in the edit summary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response but I still think you warning is unwarranted and in error. I did not use Twinkle or Rollback - I simply reverted the users last edit which he was edit warring to include and had been reported for, I therefore feel I was not removing a good faith edit but a disruptive edit. I left an edit summary which I consider appropriate. The source the IP is quoting is a personal web site and not therefore RS. To summarise your warning says I used Rollback or Twinkle to revert a good faith edit without leaving an edit summary, on all three counts you are mistaken Lyndaship (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cattle ship Britannia

Can you help with this disambiguation request? The article says Britannia was built 1827 in Yarmouth, but Yarmouth is ambiguous. I'm guessing Great Yarmouth is meant, but I could be wrong. SpinningSpark 12:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry no, Miramar has no ship listed for that build date and I have no other source for ships of that period. I would suggest posting at WT:SHIPS as other project members have access to other sources and might be able to resolve the query Lyndaship (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. SpinningSpark 13:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Princess Alice

Hi Lyndaship, Many thanks for your comments on the Princess Alice PR: the matter has now moved on to FAC for further consideration. If you have time or inclination, I would be grateful to hear any further comments you may have. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to help on such a well written article and with such a collaborative editor. My immediate thoughts on receiving your message was are the categories still valid as the article is now about the disaster instead of the ship ie 1865 ships, Paddle steamers of the United Kingdom, Ships built on the River Clyde and Steamships or would it be better to put them on the SS Princess Alice redirect? I then did some checking on Miramar for the details given for Princess Alice and Bywell Castle, sadly there are some significant differences:- the launch date for Princess Alice (as Bute) is recorded as 15 December 1865, Gross Register Tons was 432 (can't see a figure in article). On Bywell Castle the Gross Register tonnage is 1376 - I'm a bit dubious that anyone had a displacement tonnage for her and it all calls into doubt the assertion that she weighed three times that of Princess Alice. Her final fate is given as missing 29 January 1883 on a voyage Alexandria - Hull with a cargo of cottonseed and beans - so I wonder if collier is appropriate, probably is as that was her usual cargo. Sorry to bring problems rather than answers Lyndaship (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat belated ping Lyndaship (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lyndaship, That's very kind of you - and thank you for the extra information. I've used up my free trial allotment, so could you let me have the ship number? I'll do some tweaking to show both sets of figures, as both of the sources are reliable. (Some of the differences may be the difference between pre- and post-alterations to the Alice, but I can't find any explanation that would adequately explain them otherwise!). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Princess Alice is www.miramarshipindex.nz/ship/1052614 and Bywell Castle is www.miramarshipindex.nz/ship/1063546 Lyndaship (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That's great - thanks very much indeed - I'll tweak the article shortly to ensure we cover all this too. I'm much obliged to you for the additional info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MV Jadran

Hi Lyndaship, Hope all is well :),
I've made a few adjustments at MV Jadran and one of the pictures there shows the the entrance/exit however I don't quite know the terminology so I was wondering if maybe when you have a couple of minutes if you could replace the image caption (if it needs replacing) for me?,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure. I've settled on vehicle deck but you could say bow doors open awaiting loading or with bow ramp lowered for loading but not certain it is the bow as opposed to the stern! Lyndaship (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lyndaship, Ah brilliant thanks so much :), The best I thought of was "Entrance at the back of the ship" but having done some research I found out there were various deck names so decided instead of making a hash of it I'd just ask the most knowledgeable person on ships I know :), Anyway thanks again it's much appreciated,

Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Source?

Hi Lyndaship: It's apparent you know a lot about ships, so letting you know that I've reverted your edit to SS SeaBreeze because I see no sources stating that she was completed and/or launched in 1957. Do you have one you can add? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will provide a source directly. I would point out that contrary to the edit summary on your reversion of my edit that no reference had been provided in the article that this ship was launched in 1958 and should you wish to question my edit a citation needed tag would have been preferable. I would also draw your attention to that the categories for ships by year specifically refers to the date of launching not completion Lyndaship (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that ships are often launched before completion, which is why I asked you here. But all the sources in use in the article mention only 1958, so it does require a source (esp. since it changes the categorization). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ... Thanks for the source, but it's subscription only and appears to be privately generated; there's a disclaimer about the possibility of errors. Is there by any chance any publicly available register with the information? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are of course correct in your comments with regard to Miramar however I am not aware of anyone questioning its reliability before and it is used in many ship articles as a source, indeed Wikipedia offers a free subscription to it via the library ticket system which would suggest it is considered a RS. I am unaware of any open online RS source which would provide a launch date for this ship and even offline ones such as the relevant classification society are more likely to give the year of build (ie completion) than a launch date. We do suffer as the norm in merchant ship sources is to define by year of completion as opposed to the launch date used here both to dab and fill categories. The previous partial launch date (1958) given in the article infobox and used for the category 1958 ships was not cited and I can see no source used in the article saying she was launched in 1958 (built yes but as mentioned above that means completion). Please tell me if I missed that and we can review further Lyndaship (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources I found cited in the article all gave the year of completion, not the launch, yes; hence I noted above that I'm aware that launch often precedes completion. I've since searched the archives at the WikiProject Ships talk page, since I was going there with a query anyway (seems to be much less active than when I last wrote about ships), and seen that there was consternation when the site went subscription-only and that there have since been multiple requests for someone with access to check or add data. That has allayed my concern about reliability, but can I please ask you to add the source when you make an edit of that kind, adding information not previously present in the article, or making a substantial change, especially if it comes from a subscription-only source? That's needed for our readers as well as for fellow editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree I should have cited my source but when I am replacing longstanding unsourced and incorrect information which has never been challenged I do tend to just correct it and only provide the source if subsequently asked. I think you will find most of the regular ships editors now have the free library ticket to access Miramar. Oh and launch must always precede (or at least be the same as completion although I have never heard of such a thing) as completion is when the ship is fully fitted and tested ready for the owners to take over - bit hard to confirm that it makes its contract speed if it's still on the slip Lyndaship (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Baltic Fleet (United Kingdom)

Hello Lyndaship thought you might be interested updating the ship pages for those that were part of the British Baltic Fleet 20 June 1855 I have added the fleet list to the page here: Baltic Fleet (United Kingdom) I have cited every naval unit per the source I have given but there are some minor discrepancies on armaments and the names of the units between the 1855 source and the current articles on WP would you mind giving it look over and cross checking the relevant ship pages best regards.--Navops47 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done what I could, don't have sources and it's a period I know nothing about Lyndaship (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for checking anyway appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

gt vs grt

Hi there, You reverted a couple of edits of mine. That's fine: the USCG page was an excellent cite and I learned something from it. Who could imagine the US persisting with measurements that the rest of the world abandoned decades ago? One I reverted back because a new Singapore terminal simply can't use restrictions based on grt since that measurement hasn't existed since 1994. A lot of organisations still erroneously state it (today I noticed RCCL using it for a newbuild cruise ship), so it's possible to find "authoritative" cites that state grt, but it objectively can't be right. Oh, and thanks for finding a current page for that Australian ship. Cheers. Patrick Neylan (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to eradicate erroneous mentions of GRT when it should be GT but I am concerned how you have been going about it. Specifically you should not just change a mention of GRT to GT leaving the number unchanged in an article because you know its wrong especially when the information is cited to a source. You need to find a source which gives the correct GT as the measurement will be different on the change of systems. If the source given says GRT then you will have to leave it as GRT in the article even if we both know the source is wrong - you must not say its GT if the source says GRT, this is as fundamental tenet of Wikipedia - we support the information in articles by what sources say, not by our own knowledge. On the Singapore terminal they say GRT, we must say GRT or find a source which says GT or leave out any mention of tonnage in the article. Lyndaship (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I showed him how to do it on the CCGS Sir Humphrey Gilbert page here and he's still going about it wrong. Starting to get a little bit of WP:POINT vibe here. Llammakey (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I had seen the discussion on your talk page and noted that you had already explained everything but felt I should WP:AGF in my response to this message. Lyndaship (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting Carnival Sunrise back to Carnival Triumph

Lyndaship,

I noticed you reverted my edit changing the page name of the Carnival Sunrise back to the Carnival Triumph. Your reason was declared as premature. This was not premature. The Carnival Triumph was already taken out of service and is currently undergoing a refit to become the Carnival Sunrise. I made this clear when I moved the page to the new name. Unless otherwise noticed, it will become the Carnival Sunrise according to Carnival's announcements. Carnival has already pulled the Carnival Triumph name from their own website. WikiEK (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently they have announced their intention to rename the ship at the completion of the drydocking around the 29 April. the ship might fall to bits before then or they might change their mind and decide to call it Carnival Widgiamaflops. The AIS is still transmitting as Carnival Triumph, the classification society and Miramar still list it as Triumph, theres 766k google hits for Triumph and 266k for Sunrise. Enough said? Feel free to move it if and when it actually becomes Sunrise Lyndaship (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

At least from what is publicly known, this ship will be renamed the Carnival Sunshine. The page name should be updated to reflect it's upcoming change to avoid confusion for users trying to research this ship. Unless if something happens, it can always be changed later on. I made the name change in good faith based upon the fact that the ship will as far as anyone can tell will be renamed as planned given that it's transformation is already underway. Given your reasoning, I can agree there is a very small possibility that it could be purchased by another cruise line, be transferred to a subsidiary, or suffer a catastrophic loss before the ship re-enters service. This occurrence is not common but it has happened to ships before. I do not understand your reasoning as to why Google search results have to do with this matter. I nor you have no control over the content posted on any other website that is not related to Wikipedia. I will refrain from making any further edits to the article to allow time for you to respond. WikiEK (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your good faith is not in question and I appreciate your efforts to keep Wiki accurate. The problem here is that we only have a declared intent by the line to rename the ship when the refit is complete, that renaming may or may not come to pass. Currently the ships name is Triumph and the article title should reflect that. I have detailed authorative sources which shows the legal name is Triumph and the google hits mention supports that the WP:COMMONNAME is also Triumph. I fail to see why you feel there is urgency to rename the article, lets wait until she is actually renamed so wiki is giving accurate information and not something which may not happen Lyndaship (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian cruisers

Hi! I see you reverted my changes on Brazilian cruiser Almirante Tamandaré without explanation. I had changed it to a redirect to the main disambiguation page to avoid duplicating information. Since there are only four articles in total, I don't think it makes sense to have two disambiguation pages with similar information. Isa (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I just thought it was a missing ship index page, now I see that it was an improperly formatted one. Ship index pages are not dab pages and are required for every name which has been used by more than one ship. On my tablet at present but I can give you links to the relevant guidelines tomorrow if you want Lyndaship (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A quick look at WP:SHIPDAB seems to be saying that there should be two dab pages and gives the example of Nautilus (disambiguation). In this case, there's about 30 articles, plus 15 for ships, which I guess makes sense. To do this correctly then, I suppose Almirante Tamandaré (disambiguation) should only include a link to Brazilian cruiser Almirante Tamandaré (which should probably be renamed List of ships named Almirante Tamandaré).

My problem with this is that there's only four articles in the dab page, and it seems rather unwieldy to have two dab pages just for those. There doesn't seem to be a threshold under which the different dab pages are merged in WP:SHIPDAB, but I don't think it's necessary to have two dab pages for four articles. I'd WP:IAR and have only one dab page. Isa (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that having two dab pages is unnecessary however my change was to create a ship index page not a dab page. The differences are explained at WP:SETINDEX and guidance is given at WP:SHIPSMOS Lyndaship (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for getting my terms mixed up, I'm unfamiliar with ship indexes. Just so we understand each other: are you saying we should have a dab page for two articles, with a link to a ship index page that contains the two other articles? Isa (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ship Index pages are definitely relatively unknown beyond regular ship editors and are often questioned. I've seen dab pages with two articles and a link to the SI page containing a list of ships so named and conversely others where each ship features on the dab page. I don't object to either but if one of the ships listed on the SI page does not have an article then it would be a red link on the dab page if listed individually Lyndaship (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the ship index to List of ships named Almirante Tamandaré and added a link back to the main dab at Almirante Tamandaré (disambiguation). The main dab has two articles, plus a link to the ship index. Does that look okay? Isa (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The important thing for me is that the SI page exists. I agree the title you've moved it to conforms to WP:SHIPMOS so I'll leave it be. Looking at the category Set Indices on ships that despite the guidance the List of ships named format has only been used when there is a commonname issue (eg HMS Hood) or if there are merchant ships with multiple prefixes or sometimes if there are both warships and merchant ships using that name Lyndaship (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Pacific War's infobox?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacific_War#RFC on detail in infobox regarding beligerents and commanders. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Lyndaship/Archive 2. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MrClog (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your thread has been archived

Hi Lyndaship! You created a thread called RFA Sir Galahad (1966) at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

HNLMS Overijssel (D815)

What's the point of a link to a dab page that doesn't exist? Hairy Dude (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a link to a set index page which has not yet been created and unlike dab pages red links to SI pages are fine. The text claims this ship is the twelfth of name. Lyndaship (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CS Alert (1890) GA review

Thanks for your additions to this article. A question has come up at the GA review about the name of the ship prior to 1880. Any chance you can help with that information? SpinningSpark 16:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Miramar states that she was launched on 6 March 1871 as The Lady Carmichael (note name includes the definitive article) for the Submarine Telegraph Company. This conflicts with the statement in the article that she was purchased by that company c.1880 implying that she was built for and previously owned by another company Lyndaship (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

SS Politician

Hi Lyndaship, You have been very helpful in correcting the technical shippping errors in some articles I have previously worked on, and I hope you would be able to do the same for another one I've finished re-working. It's the SS Politician article - almost a non-entity of a ship until it's final voyage, which ended up in book, screen and stage versions. If you're able to have a read through the initial sections at least to see I haven't made any glaring errors, I'd be most grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. I have looked at Miramar and added some dates to the infobox. Miramar states that the ship was laid down as Canadiana but that is not a name Furness Withy had used before and I think it is in error. The three sister ships ordered at the same time all reused traditional Furness names ending in A and I think therefore that the correct name was Canadia. Your choice is do you go with what RS say even if it is wrong? She was launched as London Merchant and after completion was managed by the Furness subsidiary Neptune Steam Navigaton Company. In 1935 Neptune was merged with another Furness company to form a new subsidiary called Johnston Warren Lines Ltd. Subsequently that year she was sold to Charente part of T & J Harrison and renamed Politician. I see that originally in the article it stated that she was launched twice sourced to Hutchinson, totally impossible I think and I guess he's confused between launched from the slip and launched into service. All other details given such as GRT, length etc in the article agree with Miramar. Lyndaship (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Spam deletion thanks

Thanks for your recent reverts of spam links. I've added a warning to their talk page. Meticulo (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

HMS Himalaya

The launch date couldn't have been after the SS Atrato though, as both ships were described as the "largest". Are you sure your RS is accurate? The timeline of tonnage would not make sense if the Himalaya came before the Atrato. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm. Miramar is accepted as RS although as with any RS source there can be errors. However I'm minded to accept it as correct unless you can produce any source which disagrees with it. The journal you gave earlier from 1893 I couldn't see any launch date for a Himalaya in the extract and considering when it was published (40 years after this Himalaya) I think it refers to the Himalaya launched in 1892. The Timeline of largest passenger ships is your construction so I don't know about the accuracy of the list Lyndaship (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian submarine Álvaro Alberto

Are you really sure that's how the article must be called? A description of the object instead of the name of the object (with perhaps a disambiguator)? --Bageense^(disc.) 17:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. See WP:NCSHIP . Lyndaship (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ship launches in 2009, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sasebo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

USS Hendry (APA-118)

Did you mean to remove the image of the builder plate along with the entry of the only thing left is the builder plate? Can we still have the image without the sentence?Pennsy22 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I did as I didn't think it was very interesting and was pointless without the supporting sentence. However if you feel the article is better with it I will not object if you restore it Lyndaship (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Japanese destroyer Sakaki

Hi Lyndaship. Thank you for correcting my misinformed move at Japanese destroyer Sakaki (1915) a few days ago. I didn't find anything about the second Sakaki in my cursory Google search, and I noticed that only the 1915 vessel was listed at Sakaki (disambiguation), so I thought there was only one ship by this name. Out of curiosity, how did know about the Sakaki that was built during WWII? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I discovered the existence of the other Sakaki by putting Sakaki destroyer in the wikipedia search box and scrolling down the results until I came across List of ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. I then verified the info by checking in a reference book I have on IJN ships - Watts and Gordon The Imperial Japanese Navy. I created most of the Japanese ship index pages but did not create one when there was no article for any ship of that name and one of the uses was for a ship which was never launched (so would be unlikely to ever have an article). There were a number of such cases involving Tachibana/Matsu class destroyers. Lyndaship (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mardi Gras

My bad. I realized after I edited that it was an SI, but you beat me to reverting it. - Donald Albury 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Lol no worries. Ship index pages are a bit of an unknown so editors frequently apply dab page rules to them Lyndaship (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Mardi Gras ship

I don't know what's wrong with the template but the link to Mardi Gras (ship) you've added on Mardi Gras (disambiguation) is not working. It's linking to the Mardi Gras page about the celebration instead of Mardi Gras (ship). Kind regards, Coldbolt (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Whoops stupid me - fixed now Lyndaship (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! Coldbolt (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ship edits

Your attention to detail is most gratifying, you spot howlers that pass me by, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

oh lol thanks. I'm sure I miss many more than I spot. Most people just regard me as little Miss Pedantic Lyndaship (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

MS Braemar

Hello from Greece! What exactly was the problem and my edit was deleted/reverted? Is it so big problem the creation of a gallery where all the photos of the ship could fit? At least why the new photo of the ship crossing the Gulf of Corinth was deleted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peloponnisios (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:GALLERY. Specifically pictures should be placed near the relevant text (as they were before your edit). The new picture you added just shows a blob in the distance - nice picture but it doesn't illustrate the subject of the article very well, I think it would be a super addition in Gulf of Corinth or Rio-Antirrio Bridge though Lyndaship (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. You are absolutely right. Greets and a happy near year! Peloponnisios (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:DEPS

Flagging something as {{better}} should result in better sources being found, not a knee-jerk deletion. As WP:DEPS says (§2): "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.[2][3][4][5] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." You might wish to reflect on your deletion of flags, references and content at HSC Francisco in this light. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Having seen the article appear in the weekly listing of ship articles needing attention marked as Unreliable source (not BETTER) and after considering the assertion which it supported possibly the fastest ferry in the world I thought and still do that it was best to remove in toto. I see that you placed the tag and although I am hugely appreciative of the work you do ferreting out these unreliable sources in articles I do think in this case it would have been preferable if you had resolved the issue rather than tagging and leaving it to others Lyndaship (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

HMS Myosotis

Hello. The article you recently created appears to have the form of a disambiguation page, but does not have (disambiguation) in the title. Further, since there are only two topics, it might be more efficient to simply have each article link to the other with a hatnote instead of creating a separate disambiguation page. Thanks DylPickle666 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to my edit summary. Its a set index page not a dab page Lyndaship (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Still there, now?

Are you still editing World Dream, or can I put in my changes now? I've twice conflicted with yours in the last few minutes!

Some of my changes, you have just made, so I think we are aligned, but I have some more on the quarantine.

Can I go now? Onanoff (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I know how annoying that is. Yes you do yours - the only other thing I was going to do is to remove unneeded cites in the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. After a third lockout (for your reversion), I finally made it. I'm done with this now, after getting sidetracked into adding a 'Name' section at the virus article, and some other follow-ons. Best to you, and keep safe (speaking from Hong Kong).Onanoff (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry again! Had to revert that pointless change. Thoughts with you in HK, must be worrying Lyndaship (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

SS John Randolph

Thank you for edits to List of shipwrecks of the United Kingdom. Please add the wrecking date of the fore part of the ship to SS John Randolph and to Torrisdale, Sutherland. I can't do this because I don't have access to the book that you cite. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just found this reliable source:

• "John Randolph (Fore Part): Torrisdale Bay, Atlantic". CANMORE. Historic Environment Scotland.

If you have time and the inclination please use this to check and update SS John Randolph, you appear to specialise in articles on ships. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Lyndaship (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Egret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trawler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Hatnotes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Thank you for raising it there Lyndaship (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Hello Lyndaship. You have reverted a number of my removals of hatnotes. Have you read WP:HATNOTE? Hatnotes help readers navigate. Wikipedia:HATNOTERULES says:

• "Link directly to other articles" which a red link clearly does not
• "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Take for example, French brig Palinure (1804). There are no redirects to this page containing "Snap". A reader is not going to land on this page really wanting a different HMS Snap. By all means put the HMS Snap index in See also, but not in a hatnote.

Please read WP:HATNOTE, and undo your reversions. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:SHIPDAB. I appreciate that like so much on Wikipedia the guidance often conflicts but as this form of HATNOTE is universally used on ship articles I would suggest you seek to obtain consensus before removing anymore other ships links. I will not be reverting Lyndaship (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have read WP:SHIPDAB which is about paying particular attention to naming articles, and about SIAs and the like. It doesn't mention hatnotes. Which part of it are you referring to? I can't see any conflicting guidance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence I was relying on was Make an index page that lists all the ships in a navy with the same name:

USS Enterprise lists 8 USS Enterprises HMS Vanguard lists 10 HMS Vanguards

• However I would also refer you to WP:SHIPMOS - specifically towards the the bottom of the page where it gives a sample individual ship page and you will see that the other ships hatnote is put at the head of the page. Also somewhere although I can't find it I think there is more guidance which states the template can be put at the top of the page or in a section (useful when the article is titled HMS Foo but subsequently became USS Someothername). I am sure you have checked and have seen that almost all ship articles utilise an other ships hatnote at the top of the article page, therefore if you believe that this usage contradicts the hatnoterules it would be best to raise it at WP:SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that WP:SHIPMOS does contain an example for a page "HMS Pinafore (1878)" which includes a hatnote to other ships named "HMS Pinafore". I do disagree with that usage, but I won't argue it, but that's not the problem I have with the latest batch of reversions. At French brig Palinure (1804), the guidance you quote would allow a hatnote to "other ships called French brig Palinure", but there aren't any. There is no guideline anywhere that allows a hatnote to a redlink. On my other point, there is no example on that page that suggests a hatnote to other ships that aren't in the title of the article. I'm asking you again please to reconsider your reversions, and revert your edits here, here, here, here, here and here. (Please ping me in any reply: I don't watch your page - thanks). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained if you wish to change the accepted consensus of the use of the other ships template the appropriate place would be WP:SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are not in line with accepted consensus. My problem is not with the wider use of {{other ships}}, it is about the specific use on these articles which results in redlinks and links to ships not in the article's title. (Please ping me in any reply: I don't watch your page - thanks). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I am now repeating myself, perhaps @Uanfala: who is working on hatnotes at the moment could explain, where I have failed to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: And to repeat myself yet again the appropriate place to discuss this is WP:SHIPS. Even if I accepted your point other ship editors would continue to edit in line with the existing project guidance Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What a peculiar use of hatnotes. I'm not seeing anything about hatnotes in the two ship-specific pages linked above, but it is true that things are here sometimes done differently. For instance, the article HMS Guadeloupe (1763) will have a hatnote to the index at HMS Guadeloupe, even though its title is completely unambiguous. That's against the general hatnote guidelines but it's justifiable as readers might confuse different ships with the name. However, when this is done, it needs to be immediately clear why the hatnote is there (this is the first bit anyone will read of the article). Take French brig Nisus (1805) – it's got a hatnote that says something like "For other ships with the name, see HMS Guadeloupe". But "Nisus" and "Guadeloupe" are two completely different names, and the hatnote appears to imply they're the same! That's confusing for readers. Now, reading down the article, it becomes clear that for a certain period Nisus was indeed known as "HMS Guadeloupe". So the hatnote will make sense in light of a redirect like HMS Guadeloupe (1809) (which I've just created now), but to avoid confusion it will need to be explicit about why it's there. I would suggest something along the lines of:

"HMS Guadeloupe (1809)" redirects here. For other ships with the name, see HMS Guadeloupe.

Now, as for the link to the non-existent French ship Nisus, this really has no place in a hatnote – it will send readers looking around trying to find where this mysterious article is and why it is not linked correctly. Either create the index and keep the link, or remove the link – if it's important to point out that this ship isn't the only ship named "Nisus", then the fact can be mentioned within the article's text. Anyway, that's my take on it. Lyndaship, feel free to get the opinion of another editor more familiar with the subject area. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: care to comment? Lyndaship (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I'd question whether the title of HMS Guadeloupe (1763) is as "completely unambiguous" as Uanfala suggests; there was a second vessel of the same name launched three years before - would anyone but the most narrow of specialists know the difference? Would many more be able to tell you the difference between them and the 1809 ship without reading the articles? A hatnote is useful to highlight that there are other ships of the name that might be what the reader is looking for, and I'd argue that the same applies to [Nationality + type] titles, with as frequently as I see popular media confuse a destroyer and a battleship.

I see less value in the hatnotes for ships that changed names, except in the theoretical case where a captured ship is the best known of that name, but they are better known by their original name (i.e., French ship Foo is best known as Foo, but after it's capture by the RN became HMS Bar, and it is also the best known HMS Bar and would thus be the primary topic for HMS Bar - but I can't think of any situation where that's actually the case). Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. A specific proposal has now been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Hatnotes. Lyndaship (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Northern Ireland

Hi,

I have reverted your corrections of "Ireland" to "Northern Ireland" on various maritime shipping articles because Northern Ireland was created by the British government and it came into existence on 3 May 1921.

The ship articles that you corrected were historically built in Ireland before the partition as they are all pre 1921 vessels.

You could argue the case of adding (now Northern Ireland) to Ireland after Harland & Wolff, Belfast but as mentioned before and even in the 1997 James Cameron film "Titanic", they were built in Ireland.

I have added a link to the Wikipedia page about the seperation of Ireland and creation of Northern and Southern Ireland for you below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken on two counts. Firstly I did not change Ireland to Northern Ireland on any article - I reverted your changes where you had changed United Kingdom to Ireland. Secondly when these ships were constructed Belfast was part of the United Kingdom whose formal title was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland UKGBI. Belfast remained part of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) UKGBNI when the island of Ireland was divided. At no time has Belfast been part of an independent state called Ireland. I see your reversions have already been reverted by another editor on some of the articles, kindly do the rest Lyndaship (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on your history instead of reverting for you own political agenda as it is the correct history and not what you think that it should be.

Again - I ask you read up on the history of when NORTHERN IRELAND came into existence.

I will be reverting to Ireland because that is correct.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok likely see you at WP:ANI then. I note that you have previously engaged in these "corrections" and had agreed with Andy Dingley to desist Lyndaship (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV North Head, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

HMS Balaclava

See List of shipwrecks in February 1865#24 February. Described as "HM Steamer Balaclava in the source. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Answered on the project page but I think you have provided the explanation - difference between HM steamer and HM ship Lyndaship (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mardi Gras got pushed back. Change article title?

Hi,

I'm the creator of the Mardi Gras (2020 ship) article. Since the ship got pushed back to next February, do you think I should change the title to "Mardi Gras (2021 ship)"?

Thanks, Kaio mh (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point but ships are dabbed by their launch date (as in sliding down the slipway or floating out) not completion date. See WP:NCS Lyndaship (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. Kaio mh (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

HMY Victoria & Albert

Hello
Thanks for moving the list page for these ships to a set index title; it wouldn’t work for me for some reason. And I see you finished fixing the incoming links; thank you again! Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I guessed that you had got stuck - you needed the pagemover permission to make the move. Good spot on finding the problems with the pre-existing set up on these pages Lyndaship (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Launch date of Iranian submarines

Hi, Jane's mentions 1993 as the launching year of IRIS Yunes (903). Do you have a source for 12 July 1994? Pahlevun (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I took it from the class page here on Wiki, given that it states a specific date it is likely to be more accurate than Janes. I suspect the table was copied from Russian wiki but a source appears to be [2] Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I do agree verifiable content from reliable sources such as Jane's may be inaccurate. Actually, I found one mistake in the source when creating Nooh (the submarine named after Noah) which is wrongly recorded as Noor (meaning light in Persian) in contrast to local sources. But I am not sure how much we can go further. I am not too familiar with onnline sources on sips, is russianships.info reliable? Pahlevun (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Janes is not always accurate. I doubt if russianships.info would be regarded as RS but very few of the sources used on ships articles are so unless someone came up with an RS which disproved what it said I would use it. Of course you may feel that Janes is an RS and differs so we should use that (even if it is likely to be wrong) Lyndaship (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please undo your shit, you knows nothing about Boudicca, so your action is totally wrong

Your recent editing history at MV Boudicca shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeated 14:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Miramar Ship Index

I noticed that you utilized a reference from Miramar Ship Index when editing Porjus, do you happen to have a Wikimedia Library Card or know the process that one might go about to obtain one? It seems like it would be a very useful resource for some of these more obscure ships. Any information would be of great help, thanks, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 12:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My access is through the Wikimedia Library Card. I can't recall the procedure I had to go through to get one but it was a simple application and the Miramar access was approved about a week later. It is certainly a very useful tool Lyndaship (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:88.68.182.54 impersonating you

Hi, This user, 88.68.182.54, left a message on my talk page, they are claiming to be you. I thought you might want to know about this. The message appears to be one which you sent to them. --Life200BC (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he has just cut and pasted a warning I sent him for an earlier transgression Lyndaship (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Trivia

With regards to an edit on HMS Corunna page, what constitutes trivia? What I wrote is undisputably a fact, so where is the line between acceptable fact and removable trivia? I genuinely want to understand, but I've read through the Wiki advice on trivia, and can't find a basis for your edit. 209.93.82.21 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:MILPOP. If you still feel it should be mentioned you can start a thread on the article's talk page. Lyndaship (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

ESPS

Hi there. Just in case you didn't get my ping, I think we should discuss the prefix for Spanish warships at Talk:ESPS rather than revert-warring over the issue. Tevildo (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to discuss at Talk:ESPS Lyndaship (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

HMS Rockwood (L39)

Hi I've bruised up an article on HMS Rockwood (L39) & as I've noticed you've buffed up a few other Hunts, I'd be interested in you having butchers at this one too - if you can be arsed that tis :D Steve Bowen (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I have time but I'm more of a gnome just correcting format and linkage rather than content creation Lyndaship (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Cape Horn Convoys

I don't understand why I should be proving anything to you. Since I am the one citing a reliable source, while you provide no counter-arguments whatsoever. Nevertheless here's another source talking about Cape Horn convoys: Merchant Ship Attrition: A Historical Perspective. Now refrain from modifying the article before you can provide reliable sources that contradict its content.--Catlemur (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You should be willing to explain anything to any editor who raises an issue. When disputed you should have provided the detail of what Haddesley actually says as there is a possibility of WP:SYNTH as it is patently incorrect that Allied convoys travelled around Cape Horn. Of the two extra sources you provided the first refers to independently routed ships, the second makes no mention of convoys and although referenced to CinC Fleet it is a rewrite of the first ref. Can you provide a ref saying that convoys went around Cape Horn? It's very unusual to be able to find a ref to say that something didn't happen. Now looking at Haddesley's book in snippet view it would appear that he did not claim that convoys went around Cape Horn but only mentioned convoys going to the Middle East and India without specifying if they went around Good Hope or Horn and to be fair to you the article did likewise, I have therefore added South Atlantic to stop anyone such as myself reading it as Cape Horn. Fair enough? Lyndaship (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

SS Lochgarry

You removed a category saying that it wasn't a RN ship but "only chartered", but it would have been helpful if you had added text to the article to clarify this, and also given it a category for the right kind of ship - as you left it, the categories were all about the wreck rather than the ship itself. Thanks. PamD 23:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Left it as it was pending further research due to one of the sources claiming it was a HMT. Having done that research now not only has the source confused two different ships but I have found that just about every material fact in the article is incorrect. I will sort it out later Lyndaship (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Having a conversation on cruise ships

Hi Lyndaship,
I know you've written to me before on my talk page last year when I was a newbie to this platform, having been inspired to make an account after getting annoyed seeing countless little typos and what not. I was unfamiliar with how to respond to your message at the time, so here I am to let you know that I appreciate you letting me know where I went astray. I acknowledge I was very inexperienced with editing Wikipedia and added in marketing-esque/marketing-adjacent material to an article that was righteously corrected/removed, so I thank you for that.

Now I come to you in good faith about some of my thoughts regarding how to proceed with expanding cruise ship articles while also maintaining the encyclopedic standard on Wikipedia. I'm sure you already noticed that I was the one who significantly expanded the then-Golden Princess (now Pacific Adventure; the move still seems premature to me even though someone went ahead and did it--oh well) back in February and then edited/added to it some time later. Part of the reason as to why I've taken such efforts to expand cruise ship articles has been the inspiration I've gained from reading some of the "Warfare matériel" featured articles, such as Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik, and saw that the editors had put immense effort into documenting the detailed background behind the development of the ship and the ship's activities throughout their time in active service.

Now of course, a cruise ship's service history is not comparable to the arguably much more historically significant developments that a warship partakes in. But, I still find it reasonable enough to elaborate on how a cruise ship came to be and "done," so to speak. Without knowing too much about your editing history, I'm assuming that this, then, is the crux of your editing philosophy when it comes to cruise ship articles: that cruise ships are primarily commercial vessels without as much need for detail given their presumably lack of historical significance? I acknowledge that the block of words I initially published was untidy and needed more reviewing and organizing, and I was not a fan of the layout I placed it in either. But I strongly believe that the heart of what I gathered and wrote still deserves to be there. I'm really not inclined to think that what the article looks like now is a comprehensive evaluation of the ship thus far. Additionally, in consequence of your removal of the bulk of the page, the lead section can no longer exist in the form that it is in now, given that you've removed most of the page's service history information, so the lead can no longer be fully attributable to what is currently written in the body.

I just wanted to have a conversation with you about how you view cruise ship articles should be on Wikipedia and if we can compromise on our editing philosophies, with the Pacific Adventure page as an example. I am open to hearing what you think and look forward to gaining a better understanding to work through our differences. Thank you. Tunestoons (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What a lovely way you have of expressing yourself, I wish all editors could be as considered and polite. I did feel rather guilty butchering Golden Princess as you had provided sources and spent a lot of time on it. My problem with the information you added was I did not think it was of interest to the general reader. While I am quite happy if an article gives details of the area a cruise ship has operated in I think giving duration of cruises and a laundry list of ports of call is tedious especially when it uses phrases like debuted, first time for company etc. There is also the problem that these details if sourced at all always go back to a company press release saying that the ship WILL be as opposed to HAS. Likewise I'm not impressed when number of restaurants and use of internal spaces is mentioned - it can be an escape room one day and used as a restaurant the next, again its company PR regurgitated by cruise marketing companies. Anyhow that's my thoughts but of course you're free to disagree and add what you think is important to any article Lyndaship (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional items in ship purchase

It is possible to add arbitrary items that the cost covers with the suffix= parameter. If there is transfer of technology, this should be simply indicated with tot=yes which takes care of formatting and linking. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A two year supply of ammunition, the cost of training the crew to man the ship, and change to existing facilities are not part of the cost of the ship...and they have nothing to do with TOT. This whole cost thing for classes of ships is a bag of nails as they are not comparable with different countries and sources choosing to include different things. Lyndaship (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that is not TOT, I am saying special handling is provided for TOT to normalize and make it easier. It is still possible to show the cost of the full package but not per unit, unless the itemization is too long for the infobox. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

TOT is probably best left out the infobox and project costs are not ship cost Lyndaship (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the TOT display in the infobox to show one reason why the "same" ship is usually more expensive when not built in the original country (this happens with Australia and Canada for example, but USA got a great deal on FREMM). Trigenibinion (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Forecasted costs

Many pages have cost estimates, and this is indicated. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem on Hobart class was that these were forecasted costs in 2014 but the template said they were 2019 costs Lyndaship (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So it then only needs to show 2014? Trigenibinion (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be accurate but I think all these costs on ship class pages are problematic as the actual cost by 2019 might have been different from the 2014 estimate of what the cost would have been when the project was completed. Then consider how much of the project cost actually relates to the cost of construction of the ships coupled with the fact that if at a later date further ships are ordered what proportion of the initial costs should be allocated to the further ships (like on the River class). There also should be no cost per unit in the infobox - we are not talking about boxes of washing powder and generally its WP:SYNTH. I favour not having any cost parameter in ship class infobox and I'll likely propose this at WT:SHIPS Lyndaship (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally the plane and ship costs in wikipedia are fixed at a certain date. What is wrong is when no year is shown. Some people want to have an idea of the costs of things. It is unhelpful to hide them. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's very unhelpful to provide incorrect ones, better no info than wrong info Lyndaship (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's really the cost at a certain time, it is not incorrect. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

On this example, you quoted an incorrect one and misled readers Lyndaship (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

One can make a mistake occasionally. People know that wiki can be wrong.Trigenibinion (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I must have seen the overrun on a 2019 article when I edited that. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We all make mistakes without a doubt Lyndaship (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ship cost special cases

I found yet more examples of particular formatting in the entries I was cleaning up. I did not bother thinking about them now and just removed the inline conversions or adjustments. I did the same for ships where the currency entered does not correspond to the shipyard's country. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It is now possible to assign an origin= different from the currency's country, so that it is safe to use the template in these cases as adjustment will never be applied (it would still be possible to convert the original value) Trigenibinion (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok but I have no intention of using these templates. I will continue to use free text on any entries I make in this parameter Lyndaship (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If people see templates, they will tend to use them, which will keep the infoboxes cleaner and future-proof. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it as the template involves more knowledge and expertise to use compared to free text. Of course if they want to they can but conversely no editor is obliged to use any template Lyndaship (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, people enjoy the liberty of using free text if they don't understand, but calling the template is normally easy when you see the usual examples. What requires technical knowledge is programming them. I think that some editors will eventually clean up the content to use the template if they see the usual free text. I hope that if people see templates being used they will assume that there is a standard format and not attempt to add conversions or adjustments, although a naive user could think that it is just the template not being able to do that and add them anyway. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References in infoboxes

So one is not supposed to add reference links from the infoboxes to the prose? Trigenibinion (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide The infobox is intended to be a summary of sourced facts which are already included in the prose. If something is sourced in the prose you don't need to source it in the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not see a specific guideline there for ships, but I found the general one. I understand that if the prose only contains the reference but does not show the fact, the link should still be present. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It says Most infobox content should also appear in the body of the article, and Citations do not need to be provided in the infobox if the information is repeated in the body of the article and cited there. If the source supports some other fact in the prose its preferable to add the cost info to the prose and cite it there and not cite it in the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had understood that the right way to do it is to add the fact and the reference to the prose, and not to the infobox. Sometimes someone removed a cost from the infobox when it had no reference even if it was sourced in the page, but I don't know if the fact was also there. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ShipCost bonus

If a cost if assigned using ShipCost, it can be seen here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ShipCost. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reina del Mar

The problem here was only that it showed "2.5 million" instead of 2,500,000 ? Thanks. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

ShipCost update

Just to keep you informed, {{ShipCost}} could now convert the currencies immediately preceding the Euro (no worries, this was trivial, as the feature was added to {{To USD}} and {{To EUR}}). The modifications actually happened in {{ItemCost}} and {{FXConvert}} which are general templates; the latter still cannot not call {{To EUR}} or support ranges. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Yasa Neslihan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fukuyama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

HMS Cornflower

Thank you for your edit in the disambig page for HMS Cornflower. I am seeking your agreement in making some further changes to the page. Many sources, including Colledge, would say that HMS Cornflower (1916) was renamed Tai Hing and then renamed Cornflower again, and she was sunk in Dec 1941. In actuality, Cornflower had been replaced by SS Tai Hing, an entirely different ship, in 1940. Tai Hing was later renamed Cornflower after its predecessor, and it was the ship that was sunk in battle. The original Cornflower was sold as scrap in 1940.

This can be verified through local sources at the time. Here is an excerpt from P.5 of the 1940-09-02 Hongkong Telegraph (this can be verified by accessing the Hong Kong newspaper archive): "In a week or so the Hongkong Naval Volunteer Force will be fully accommodated[...] on board a new depot ship, the former steamship Tai Hing, but under the continued name of H.M.S. Cornflower, the name of the late depot ship." "The late Cornflower was handed back to the Royal Navy, and she is to be broken up."

I would also like to add that, while both ships acted as a shore establishment, Cornflower (ex-Tai Hing) was a seaworthy vessel, as noted in the same article: "The new Cornflower lies in the basin and will remain stationary, although she can put to sea if necessary. Probably the only occasions on which she will leave the basin will be in obedience to typhoon signals."

I understand that 90% of the sources will differ from this account, therefore I am asking for your opinion before changing the fate of the original Cornflower to "sold as scrap in 1940." Thank you. - Rinbro (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm this is interesting. I think you have found an error in Colledge and other sources as from Mirimar it is quite clear the original Cornflower is a different ship from Tai Hing. However on the two material points we still have a problem, firstly every RS except the one you provide states that the original Cornflower was lost in December 1941 and your newspaper quote does not contradict this as it says "she is to be broken up" not she has been broken up. Secondly theres no source to say that Tai Hing was formally renamed or commissioned by the RN as HMS Cornflower (and Miramar which lists all names of a ship does not record Cornflower as one of Tai Hings), at best we have a claim that she will be known as H.M.S. Cornflower. Maybe you could put a note on the Ship Index page saying sources differ but I don't think the newspaper actually says the original Cornflower was scrapped in 1940 or prove Tai Hing was renamedLyndaship (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Tai Hing was confirmed to be renamed to Cornflower per the 1941 Navy List. I do agree that pending further research, it is impossible to certify the fate of both ships. In this case, would it be okay to change the fate of the two ships to "Her further fate is unclear: It was reported that Cornflower was sunk in December 1941 during the Battle of Hong Kong, but it is unknown if this refers to the original Cornflower or her successor."? As for the disambig page, I propose we do not mention the fate of both ships there, and list all 3 Cornflowers chronologically as follows:

Three ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Cornflower:

• HMS Cornflower (1916), an Arabis-class sloop launched in 1916
• HMS Cornflower, a river steamer launched in 1927, originally SS Tai Hing
• HMS Cornflower (1950), was an Algerine-class minesweeper laid down as HMCS Hespeler but renamed Lysander on transfer to the Royal Navy in 1943. She was renamed Cornflower in 1950 and broken up in 1957

(Further adding to the confusion, even the 3rd Cornflower appears to be the HQ ship of the Hongkong Naval Volunteer Force. It seems that they have a tradition to rename all new HQ ships to Cornflower.) Thank you. - Rinbro (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just went through some Chinese sources, Chinese Mail 1940-09-22, Chinese Mail 1940-09-26 and Ta Kung Pao 1940-09-26 all indicate that Tai Hing "is to replace the broken up Cornflower." Perhaps with this we can confirm the original Cornflower was broken up in 1940? - Rinbro (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent digging! I feel that the cite from the Navy List confirms that Tai Hing was renamed Cornflower and the Chinese sources are sufficient to prove that the original Cornflower was broken up in 1940. I'm broadly in line with your suggestions but the ship index page should mention fates and subsequent name of the Tai Hing and the individual pages should use the cites you have found to show fates and renaming. Personally I'm not keen on putting in something which I believe is wrong even if RS supports it but of course thats not wiki policy. If we are saying Cornflower 1916 was scrapped in 1940 we shouldn't also be saying she might have been sunk in 1941 - that must have been Tai Hing. I think it might be best to copy this thread to the SI page and individual articles in case at some future date someone disputes your copy per other RS. Well done again Lyndaship (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do, I have edited the pages and disambig page. Thank you for your help and advices. - Rinbro (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)