User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

MS Explorer

The Explorer and The Explorer II seem to be two different vessels. --Camptown (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

re: HMS Swan (1641)

The infobox was incorrectly making no mention of there being 102 guns on HMS Sovereign of the Seas at some point in her career, but my reference does state 100 after her rebuild (indeed the reference indicates that the 102 guns she possessed at her launch were reduced to 90 sometime after launch.

I looked over the Swan article as you suggested - I removed the comment about being a sister to Sovereign of the Seas, as she was clearly a much smaller ship than she, and the term 'sister ship' would usually indicate that they were ships built to the same draught (in which case Sovereign of the Seas had no sister, and nor did the majority of ships launched before the 1745 Establishment came into being, most likely). Martocticvs (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see that now - it reads to me as more of a colloquial term; certainly it is not correct in a technical sense at any rate. It might be interesting for the reader though for there to be a mention of the link between the ships regarding the guns... Martocticvs (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Riverdance (ship)

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Riverdance (ship), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool shipwrecks

How weird! Further to your message about the possibility of creating a "shipwreck" sub section on the article, yesterday I was thinking exactly the same thing, and even saved the Blackpool Gazette from yesterday as it had quite a decent article about the various shipwrecks. The article is online and I will add the section this afternoon if you don't mind my doing what was your idea and then if anything needs changing perhaps you could edit it? Would that be ok with you?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The Gazette yesterday had a special 4 page cover with a double page picture of the scene! I will have a start on it shortly and let you know once I have it up.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I did say in the message above this one that I would let you know when I had finished adding the "shipwrecks" section to the Blackpool article, which I was in the process of completing. Therefore, in order to add the full content which I have been doing as a preview for the past hour or so, unfortunately I have had to overwrite the content you added while I was editing. Apologies.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi sorry for a further message, but with regard to the Holland XXIV I started to add that in, but then realised it wasn't wreecked off Blackpool, and so left that out as it was wrecked at Cleveleys; and if anything it should really be in the Cleveleys article?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't move it as I didn't want to just simply remove it without discussing it with you first as you had only just added it, and it seems to be a topic you know much more about than me! And of course, I had absolutely no idea whether you were local or not; you could have also been a "Sand grown 'un" for all I knew!! :) Sure we went to Yarmouth when I was young. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and no in the end I left it in the Blackpool article rather than moving to to Cleveleys (It was Cleveleys and not Fleetwood), mostly because the wreck seems to have been on the border between Blackpool (well Bispham and Norbreck) and Cleveleys. The Riverdance is now on it's side and certainly an odd sight! Over the weekend even though it is on it's side people were still trying to climb onto it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, maybe it could be done in the same way of other sections where there is a link below the header to the "main article". So in this instance it would mean the Blackpool Shipwrecks section being trimmed right down to the bare information with a link at the top to the "main article" Blackpool shipwrecks or whatever title is apporopriate. However, I am unsure as to whether or not other such articles exist, do you know of any? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are about creating a new article for shipwrecks at Blackpool? I know it was something you brought up recently. Do you think a title of Blackpool shipwrecks would be appropriate and if so then the section within the Blackpool article would presumably then need reducing to maybe just info about the MS Riverdance and perhaps brief mention of some of the other shipwrecks with a link to the main article? What do you think? My only concern would be if another user deems the article to be trivia and/or non-notable? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I notice that you have done a great deal of work on the Blackpool Shipwrecks section. I have discovered another wreck, which rightfully ought to be placed in this section, that is the Brig Favourite, reference

http://www.mightyseas.co.uk/marhist/whitehaven/built_elsewhere/favourite.htm

I would place the information on the page myself, but I don’t know how to accomplish this without making a mess of the page. It looks very complicated with numbered sections, and I would not know how to insert one in the middle and give it a number. You are clearly a technical expert so, perhaps, you would like to insert the information. Leightonmowbray (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

M/S Riverdance

I'm in the middle of trying to restore the article. Please hang on while I get the history back. The article is currently at M/S Riverdance Gwernol 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article to MS Riverdance with its history intact. That seems to be the common way to title articles. In future, using cut-and-paste to restore articles is a bad idea since, as you have seen, it doesn't restore the article history. Thanks, Gwernol 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the edit note is really necessary. The move was a one-time occurrence that was easily enough fixed. Other editors are quite entitled to edit boldly and pretty much everything can be undone. I've left a message on User:AxG's talk page. I have no doubt that he was acting in good faith - in fact usually Wikipedia title's reflect the actual name of the subject of the article. So titling the article "M/S Riverdance" is actually completely reasonable. In this case, because other articles use "MS" instead of "M/S" its okay to keep it where it is now, but it really isn't anything to get upset about. Best, Gwernol 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If it starts up again, let me know. I've watchlisted the article, but since I have almost 30,000 articles on there I may not spot a change. Best, Gwernol 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg

Thanks for the heads-up. I also disagree with the section being deleted, but as I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I didn't want to step on anyones toes. Should I refer the issue to my peers? Spy007au (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the issue on the talk page has been resolved amicably. Let me know if you think there is anything else here that requires attention. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliza Anderson (sidewheeler)

Thanks for support on this one. I was surprised at the stuff that could be written about this ship, there's actually much more. The underground railroad incident alone was a complete surprise to me. I'll have have a look at the naming conventions, to be honest I wasn't aware there were any. I used "Anderson" instead of "Eliza Anderson" because constant use of the full ship's name seemed to make the article harder to read, and the vessel was generally called the "Anderson" for short, even in the older sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Riverdance

I have left a note on the talk page of the MS_Riverdance article and hope you can do something with it.

James Brown 17:46, User talk:79.65.242.7‎ 9 March 2008 (GMT)

List of shipwrecks in 1908

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of shipwrecks in 1908, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of shipwrecks in 1908. Gawaxay (talk contribs count) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Asumpta

Thanks for info - the proper link for the problem pdf seems to be this: http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/annual%20report%201997.pdf but it is not very informative. Look forward to completed article! --mervyn (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Empire Galahad

Hi. I would just like to let you know that I reverted your recent edit to List of World War II ships. The list is for fighting ships only and Empire Galahad was a cargo ship and ergo not qualified for the list. No hard feelings, I hope. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that list seems to include ALL ships launched that year, so that work out just fine. By the way, what exactly is the notability of this ship? Manxruler (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's good and fine then. Add those things to the article and that'll be great. Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good edit. The article is much better now. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick note about your move of MV Empire Galahad to SS Empire Galahad: Whenever you move an article, be sure to check for non-free images, like Image:SS Murillo.jpg, used in the article's infobox. If the fair use rationale does not get updated, the image na…, er, patrollers may delete a fair use image that's used in the article if it has the wrong links, etc. (I've already updated this one.)

Also, though I tend more towards the all ships are notable school of thought than the opposite, there's no real assertion of notability for Empire Galahad in the lead. Adding something like "she was one of X number of ships built for the World War II war effort", or if she was the first or last of anything could help keep the article out of an unwarranted AFD. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Armed merchant ships

No, they do not qualify to that list. Most merchant ships were armed anyway from a certain point during World War II. Anti-aircraft guns and in some cases anti-surface guns were very common amongst WWII merchantmen. However, merchant raiders and auxiliary cruisers qualify as they were simply merchantmen converted into warships. The reason we excluded merchant ships from the list is that if let them in then the list would potentially include thousands of ships. Also, merchant ships and warships probably should have separate lists anyway. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you were referring to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Vennachar

Hi Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion & I'll do that in future. How do I create my own sandbox? Cheers Spy007au (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clipper Point/Pace

My sources for at least the Clipper Point being registered in Limassol are that the Seatruck model of the vessel clearly shows the vessel being registered in Limassol, and photographs of the vessel I have seen show the vessel is registered in Limassol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightoller (talkcontribs) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Line

Hi Mjroots, I have started a new article Loch Line, which I have also listed in the DYK nominations section. If you don't mind, can you proof read and address up any typos etc. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall do, although I fly out of OZ on Monday for a 5 week O/S holiday and will be off-line for that period. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Glitra

Hi Mj. I just stumbled across some fascinating information on the SS Glitra sinking. Check it out. Manxruler (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, the book is in Norwegian. I was reading about the 125 year history of Norwegian torpedo boats when I came across this mention. Go ahead, change the format if you like. I've always had a good relationship with the Harvard style myself, but do as you like. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks correct to me. Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Giant Hovercraft

I have nominated New Giant Hovercraft, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Giant Hovercraft. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

reference: List of shipwrecks 1907

hi, what do you mean, which one? I entered two for 1907 that were not on there.

SS Suevic: "Falling Star" Misadventures of White Star Line Ships by John Eaton & Charles Haas c.1990.

SS Dakota: see the entry and reference section on this vessell in particular the link to Connecticutt Historical page. Connecticut was where this ship was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talkcontribs) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Esther Jensen

You're right, and I've already changed it. I saw it was built in Denmark. And I distinctly remember thinking to myself that I thought the Danish flag looked different than that one... Thanks for the catch. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ocean Star

Hi, I appreciate your additions to the Ocean Star page. Is there a way to add designer to that information table? Thank you. I will be posting another page for S/Y Argo shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailriddle (talkcontribs) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HHS Glasgow

Thanks for the praise! I'm just adding it to the list now, thanks for letting me know - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Moondance

I am currently Chief Engineer on Moondance and took the vessel out of dry dock on 16th October for the vessel to enter service that evening. Unfortunately further problems occurred and the vessel relocated to Brocklebank Dock in Liverpool. She is expected out of Liverpool docks at 04:00 18th October 2008 and will head to Warrenpoint to commence the service at 20:00 19th October 2008. Pugw$sh (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of schooners

Hello! Thanks for tacking some more boats onto list of schooners. I was wondering about the edit you made to the image layout, though. I'd aligned the images along the righthand margin of the page, in imitation of various featured lists which look quite spiffy with that format. No doubt I screwed something up somewhere, but if the page wasn't formatting itself correctly on some browsers or window sizes, I'd prefer to move some things around in an attempt to keep the same layout. Thoughts? --Fullobeans (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Celtic

Great to see a Wikipedia page about her - I am the stepson of one of her owners during the 1970s, and I have many happy memories of days spent aboard her as a boy. My stepdad has a fairly large amount of info about her (captains, engines {Kelvin, not steam, by the time he owned her}, routes) which would be relevant. Unfortunately, he's not really connected to the internet, so I'll dig the info out next time I visit him and my mum in Spain. Once again, thanks for starting this page! Daen (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the "SS" designation is wrong; you could be confusing her with the White Star liner of the same name built in 1872 - a far cry from the humble Celtic at Sittingbourne! Daen (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mahratta

Yep, a lot of people have been having confusion about the new system; right now at the discussion page people are working on trying to think of a good system to deal with this, since a lot of people have been thinking their noms were deleted and then re-nominating them. Let us know if you have any ideas! —Politizer talk/contribs 13:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the 1939 and 1909 redirect pages I made...I just put those up based on the assumption that some reader might have the year the ship sunk in mind, rather than the year the ship was built, and try to search for that. I rarely deal with ship articles, though, so I wasn't aware if there was a standard procedure; if you think it's useful to have those redirects than you can keep them if you want, but if you think no one will ever use those search terms then I don't mind if you leave the speedy deletion tags up. —Politizer talk/contribs 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Mahratta

Certainly. While you have done well with the citations for that, the way you have presented the article just seems to have too little for each section with regards to the prose. Also, a bit of advise with regards to the convoys, having a list of the ships that participated does not belong in this article (that is better left to an article on the convoy itself). Condensing all of those one or two sentence paragraphs together or expanding them would do the trick for me. I also see that you've asked Bellhalla, and when he responds you'll really have some great suggestions. -MBK004 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in... :) I came across it in the new article feed, and I'd agree with what MBK004 said. Ship lists and convoy details are better off in their own article (Convoy SC-7) for example, and a brief note saying where the convoy was going to and when and any significant details regarding this specific ship's actions in it is usually ample. And the stubby sections could be amalgamated together for ease of reading and flow. HMS Quail (G45) (it's one of mine I'm happy to admit) is an example of how these sections can be combined into a few paragraphs, with convoy details trimmed to the bare minimum to keep the information encyclopedic for the article subject. And I'm also sure Bellhalla will be able to give plenty of helpful advice! Benea (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply to my comment on the article talk page. I didn't realise it was possible to watch a page but not its associated talk page! How do you do that? Shem (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've learnt a new thing today! Thanks. Shem (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Arctic convoys

Thanks for that; I've got Arctic convoys on my copious "to-do" list, though I need to finish a few North Atlantic ones first. Thanks for thinking of me. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tonnage

Hello. Good job on the ship articles. One note: Gross register tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight. It therefore is not expressed in long, short, or metric tonnes/tons, nor is there a conversion from one to the other. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The confusion between gross tonnage and displacement is probably the most common error in ship articles; others include using the service entry date as the launch date (very common with cruise ship articles), and confusing depth (of hold) with draught. I like how you have handled deadweight tonnage, by putting in the capacity field, which seems most correct. Other articles have DWT in displacement; although obviously related, it is not a figure for vessel displacement. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
One other point: I believe that burthen is not used for modern ships. Your Empire ships should use the tonnage field for grt, and if commissioned navy vessels, the displacement field for that measure. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Dragon

There's really no need to apologise. I nearly didn't bother undoing the change, until I checked the other T45 Destroyers, and found they mostly did have their Battle Honours listed. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Research source on steamboats

Thanks for the source, it is a good site.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

re: MV Pelikan

Hi Mj. I'm afraid that since: "This list does not include all ships used for military purposes, e.g.; oilers, troopships, landing craft, etc., partly for space reasons and partly since this is a list of fighting ships." Pelikan doesn't qualify. Sorry for the delayed response, I'm on Christmas holiday far away from home these days. I wish you a very Merry Christmas. Manxruler (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. You enjoy your Christmas as well. Manxruler (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Inherent notability

You say "The vast majority if ships are considered notable enough to have articles by WP:SHIPS," but I cannot find on that project page where they seek to draw a bright line between notable and nonnotable ships. Ship just says one is a "large vessel that floats on water," and that they are larger than boats. I cannot agree that every large vessel that floats on water is inherently notable. Perhaps there is some discussion of this issue buried in the discussion page archives. Do you suppose that if there were a project on locomotives, the members might decide that every locomotive (by engine number, not just model) was notable? Or a project on fire engines might decide that every fire engine in every fire station is notable? Or a project on airplanes might decide that every airplane (or airliner or warplane) is notable? Etc for farm tractors, churches, elementary schools, restaurants, buses, bus stops, libraries, broadcast towers, water towers, etc down to any definable and listable items? People who gravitate to a project tend to like the things the project covers. I do not agree that starting a project gives the participants license to decide which things related to the project are inherently notable and exempt from the requirements of WP:N to show substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, beyond the directory listings which satisfy verifiability. I agree that a great many ships are notable as the earliest of its type (Hunley, Monitor, Dreadnought), fastest, most luxurious, most heavily armed (Bismarck), most unfortunate in its demise (Vasa, Titanic, Normandy), most successful or least successful in battle, because these have all been written about extensively in secondary sources, and easily satisfy WP:N. Many ships were important in commerce, exploration, scientific research, or war, but more were unremarkable other than directory information. A project does great good for Wikipedia in improving and standardizing articles, and listing article in need of writing. I do not envision Wikipedia as a mirror of every directory, with stub entries about every landing craft, merchant marine ship, Liberty Ship, or tugboat, any more than I want to see an article about every broadcast tower or every city street or every other fungible thing with no real "biography" other than directory information.Bloodworth was a "standard Liberty ship" which was in 3 convoys before it was scrapped, and saw action on one. I could write an equal article about any of the millions of soldiers in WW2 who was in 1 battle, or the tank or plane or Jeep he rode in, if similar directory listings were available, but they would not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Most churches (individual congregations or their buildings) have been found nonnotable and deleted when they came up for a=AFD, as have most broadcast towers (not the radio or TV stations, which if they meet certain criteria are generally recognized as notable). Train stops have generally been botable but not bus stops. Locomotive fanciers have argued for articles about specific engines, without universal success. There is always a reductio ad absurdum, since many things are in official directories, satisfying verifiability, but do not satisfy notability in the view of the larger Wikipedia community. I have been reading through the archives on the project ship discussion page, and the first general question about notability I found was December 2006 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 3#Notability criteria where someone inquired about a cargo ship. Earlier there had been a claim that all navy ships are notable, but acknowledgement that there is no bright line to distinguish "boat" from "ship." Most of the earlier discussion and project work had been on warships rather than cargo ships under control of a navy. I expect that editors from some small countries with only a few small armed speedboats would want articles about the "navy" vessels of their country. It sems up to each project to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere, rather than universal notability of everything which might fall under their jurisdiction. To be avoided here is the ad terrorem type of argument that "If we let them delete the Bloodworth, then next they will be deleting the Arizona!" I really value the work that has gone into improving ship articles by project participants. I found scant additional thought about what was and was not notable. There was an AFD [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)] which kept a tugboat (note "boat") with most of the "keep" arguments along the lines of "ILIKEIT" or "all commissioned naval vessels are notable", which would get us back to a 14 foot motorboat commissioned in the navy of some micronation deserving an article. I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6#WW2 Merchant shipping notability that "All ships are notable" which some project participants disagreed with, and held out for cargo ships sunk in war. In that same archive under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)" one editor said the project was "a memorial" which clearly violates not a memorial. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 7#AFD Notification says that AFDs up to January 2008 had kept "commissioned ships" but that "there was a strong preference for lumping minor ships with routine service histories together in articles on the class" which I could go along with. I see the multitude of Liberty ships in that category, unless something out of the ordinary occurred, Three crossings with one attack seems ordinary for WW2 cargo ships. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic convoys

I've just created HMS Mahratta (G23) which was involved in the Arctic Convoys, maybe there's some info there to give you a start on a few articles? Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots - please can you alter the title to HMS Mahratta (1942) to make it fit in with the rest of the articles on M class and other destroyers. Unlike the United States Navy, which used their Hull sequence numbers for construction purposes and retained those letters throughout their lives, in the Royal Navy (and most other European navies) the pennant numbers were subject to change and were not a permanent part of a ship's name - the proper way to distinguish the various ships of the same name is by using the year of launch (in brackets). Rif Winfield (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the naming conventions, HMS Mahratta (G23) would be the correct name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be. The naming conventions in Wikipedia clearly state: "For older ships predating the modern pennant/hull number system, the most widely recogniseable fact about the ship is its date of launch or construction. This is a unique identifier for a ship with a particular name in navies where names are customarily re-used and is applicable generally to all ships, unlike local naval identification numbers". Whereas the year of launch is easily recognisable and an absolute identifier, the pennant numbers in many navies are assigned (or certainly were assigned up to and including WW2) in a fairly arbitrary way, and were subject to alteration during a ship's life. Pennant numbers would certainly not be known to the general public making an enquiry on Wikipedia. Sadly, this does not seem to be understood by our transatlantic colleagues; the USN series of hull serial numbers are in a different category, and are not similar to the series of pennant numbers used in Britain and elsewhere in Europe; I am very happy that those detailing USN warships use hull serial numbers to distinguish American warships of the same name, I am just very unhappy that they should fail to understand that this system cannot be applied elsewhere.

With WW2 British destroyers, to use this example, pre-war destoyers had flag superior (letters) D, H or F prefexing the numeral pennants. The Tribal class were initially allotted flag L but this was changed to flag F in December 1938, and the flag L was usede for escort destroyers then building or converting (such as ther Hunt Class or the old "V" & "W" conversions. In 1940 the flag superios D and F were changed to flags I and G, and new construction was allotted flag G until the construction of the "T" class, which were given flag R. Post-war, the flag D was allotted to all destoyers and in consequence some re-numbering was required, usually by the addition of 100 or 200 to the original numbers but sometime just arbitrarily re-numbered to use a gap in the range of serial numbers. At no time were pennant numbers allotted sequentially (as is the case with USN hull numbers). The Mahratta avoided a change in pennant numbers, but this was only because she was sunk just one year after entering service! Rif Winfield (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Timothy Bloodworth

Hi, you nom'd this for deletion. Would you like to look at the article now that it has been expanded and decide whether you want to withdraw the nom or not? Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of my talk page I was offline for the last few days and this AFD has been closed in the meantime. For what it's worth a withdrawal would not be in order as there was another delete !vote. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Empire ships

Hello. Can you please recheck the urls for the Miramar links on the Empire ships? I have come across three which linked to other vessels, which have now been corrected. Kablammo (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning them up-- I could not figure out what happened. If they keep changing urls it may be necessary just to link to the search page (provided they don't change that too). Kablammo (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Convoy template

Thanks for your post: interesting suggestion; did you have something in mind? (Do you want to discuss this here or there BTW?) Xyl 54 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I’ve had a look at some templates; The problem I see is what to leave out.
There were about 300 convoy routes in WWII, each running maybe twice a month for years. Most weren’t attacked; we wouldn’t want to include them all, would we?
Of the ones that were attacked, Uboatnet reckons there were over 600. They don’t (surprise, surprise!) include those where the U-boats were driven off or destroyed without hitting anything; they also (less surprisingly) don’t include those attacked by aircraft, or surface vessels, or submarines of another navy. So it’s quite a big number we are looking at.
Still, give it a go! (he said guardedly!) Xyl 54 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied to User talk:Xyl 54 for continuance. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

SS Empire Antelope

Very nicely done article! As you requested, I've added what little information Hague's book contained on the final voyage. Hague's comprehensive subject limits details on individual ships. Thewellman (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Mont-Blanc

Thank you very much for adding the extra category and especially the signal flag graphics. I wondered about finding flags but was too weary after doing the article. Letterofmarque (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cromer lifeboats

Hi. Thank you for the note, but it's not me. I think you probably wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stavros1 and I've copied it there. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no worries whatsoever! Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology  stavros1  ♣  19:01 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE : List of ship launches in 1946

Content of the article is as of follows. As you have mentioned, I also recommend that you seek consensus at your Wikiproject before recreating the article to prevent it from deletion.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no objection to recreation. What you see above is the content of the article, there's really nothing else in the deleted article. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Indigirka

Thanks for the tips.-

A quick question here: when writing about a ship that had many names and is still active, what would be the "right" title, the first name, the current one, or the the one I believe might be the most notable?Ekem (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I thought you wanted all these names in the article because they were listed in Plimsoll. How do we know that when this happens in Plimsoll or Miramar that we are dealing with mispellings that can be ignored? Shouldn't there be a note at the bottom about this? Ekem (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

re:SS Irma & SS Henry

Thanks for the pointers, I appreciate it. What's the difference with the SS Empire Antelope infobox and the ones I have used? Manxruler (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1948

Sorry, my error, I didn't spot the link. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Superior City

Thank you for the name correction and the helpful link. I helped edit another shipwreck article called Nathan F Cobb Shipwreck. I have not been able to locate an online source for her construction and sailing history before she sank. Do you have any ideas where to look?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comet (steamboat)

I realized when the history was lost that there had to be a better way to rename the article. Thank you for explaining the better way to correct an article's title. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

re: AV2767 Crusader

I've belatedly responded to your message by moving this article to Australian Army ship Crusader (AV2767). AV2767 Crusader is a more common name, but just Crusader is used in many sources, and the new name is much clearer. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SS Fire King

Hi Mjroots. Are you planning on writing an article on SS Fire King? Manxruler (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. SS Rowan is very interesting. Good luck on that one. By the way, to avoid mixing new comments in with the old ones use the "new section" function located just to the right of "edit this page". Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Anderson (lost 1886); Iota (lost 1893)

http://www.plimsoll.org/resources/SCCLibraries/WreckReports/15288.asp is the official report for the first; there is another for Iota in that database but I did not put in a link; there is more about Iota in the Tintagel#Geology#Shipwrecks page (one or two books about Tintagel give additional details of course, e.g those by Dyer and Canner mentioned in References there)----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re:SS Corvus

Hi Mj. I would in no mather insist on it being GT and not GRT, I was merely going by the source provided for the information, warsailors.com. That source says GT, so I figured since it was the cited source and that's what it said, then that had to be correct. If you've got a better source that says differently, then by all means go with GRT and cite your source for it. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent change to Morion

Hi I note you have made a number of additions of ship names to redirect pages recently. This is great, and will certainly assist readers in finding the right article. However, your entries don't follow the normal rules for entries on disambiguation pages at MOS:DAB. Is there any reason you think these particular entries require more than one link? Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Convoy ON 154

The nomenclature of these westbound ON (Outward North) convoys is a bit confusing. Their eastbound counterparts were the fast HX convoys and the slow SC convoys. The ON convoy sequence began 26 July 1941. After a time, faster and slower ships sailed with alternate convoys. The (usually odd-numbered) ON convoys with faster ships were sometimes differentiated as ON(fast) or ON(F) and the slower (usually even-numbered) convoys were sometimes similarly differentiated as ON(slow) or ON(S) or ONS. On 15 March 1943 the confusion was officially addressed by allocating the slower westbound ships to a new series of ONS convoys beginning with ONS 1, while the faster convoys continued the ON sequence above 171. I prefer to reserve use the ONS prefix for the convoy series beginning in 1943 to avoid confusion with earlier higher numbered convoys of the ON series and emphasize chronological continuity of the ON series. Thewellman (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Empire Morn

Hi, if you check the history, you'll see I haven't actually ever edited the List of Empire ships - M article. I did do a redirect for Empire Morn though, just because the article I was writing gave a little more history of the ship. (I didn't do the SS Empire morn redirect though).-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The documents I've quoted from are explained in more detail at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/bt389.asp and were the official British records of all merchant shipping movements in WWII. They can be viewed without fee by visiting The National Archives (though for the vast majority of people that would cost more than paying the fee for online access), those in certain institutions that subscribe through the Univeristy based Athens authentication system also have free access to the online records.
I agree that the current state of the redirects is a bit of a mess, I didn't create the one from Empire Morn to Raymond Steed, which doesn't make a lot of sense I agree, once there is a an Empire Morn article, the SS Empire Morn one can easily be pointed to that, but for the moment I though that would at least point to the best information available. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the redirect isue is now moot as User:Benea has kindly revamped SS Empire Morn into a proper article, and straightened out the other redirects. David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:1885 Ships

Hey, MJ, I came across the above category that you created. Just as an FYI, the proper category name is Category:1885 ships—lower case s—which already exists. I moved the sole article in 1885 Ships to 1885 ships. As a further FYI, all of the individual year categories from 1850 on (the cutoff discussed at WT:SHIPS) have already been created. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragon's honours

RE: User talk:Saberwyn#HMS Dragon (D35)==

I was always under the impression that only the battle honours earned by a particular ship should be shown, as although inherited honours belong to the same name, they belong to different ships. That said, I haven't been able to find any guidelines or significant commentary either way, so I'm going to raise the question at WP:SHIPS and the maritime warfare task force and see what is said. -- saberwyn 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:SS Barøy

Thanks, M! I'll look into that. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what does Dks mean? Barøy's got two of them, evidently. And the N to the far right of the page, what does that signify? Manxruler (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. My French is pretty much non-existent. :) And the words are quite obscured, will see what I can find out, I'll break out the old dictionary and have a look later. Manxruler (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Queen Mary 2

Oh, no, I was trying to italicize the title like that black mold page. But then I realized that if I did that every boat or jerm and titles would need to do that. Hehe.   The Watch Dude  Face-smile.svg

Malcolm Miller

Hi, thanks for the question. Good question. The name of the yacht is painted on the stern. To me it looks as if it is the original name - so I wonder if the yacht was ever fitted out as a private yacht? The anti-fouling has been applied roughly - ie not with a nicely lined boot-top - but the anti-fouling is weedy, so the yacht has been in the water for a while. Mystery!. Regards, Simon Springnuts (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - Thanks for tweaking the image. Springnuts (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
PPS - I found photos of the interior when she was being chartered in the Caribbean. Curioser and curioser. Springnuts (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandria (Schooner)

Thanks for your comment. I am quite inexperienced and it takes me a long time to make any changes. I have changed the name of the article as you suggested. Regarding the infobox I feel I do not have enough info to make it meaningful and it would take some time but I will try to find more information and time to insert the infobox. GS3 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whodidwhat incident

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Nezzadar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Mjroots

Thank you for all the work that you have done on the Adele (1906) stub and I apologise for any inconvenience that my naivety as to the etiquette associated with the creation of articles may have caused you.

I appreciate you for stepping into an argument that was not of your creating, especially since I have been away from the computer and have only come back to see what appears as the aftermath.

After this I will not create any more pages but will focus on going back and adding some detail

Again sincere thanks
Whodidwhat (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuncurry (1903)

Hi Mrroots

I know I said I would hang off putting any new articles up, but something came up to cause this shipwreck to be moved forward, can you please have a look at this article before I move it over User:Whodidwhat/Tuncurry (1903) feel free to edit what ever you like

Thanks in advance Whodidwhat (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS can you leave things like catagories off for now so nothing from outside links into it thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whodidwhat (talkcontribs) 08:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Paul

Quite right. I have changed it to SV Paul. You may be interested in my article - Dalgarven Mill. Bedankt, Rosser Gruffydd (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Seatruck

I don't really know that much about the Arrow and Shield. The Challenge is now Clipper Ranger and the Triumph is Clipper Racer. I think the first two have done some work on charter for Norfolkline. Lightoller (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS E18

Thanks for the note. The article does indeed need something of an overhaul - someone helpfully came along a while back and inserted a lot of very detailed material which seems to have come from operational reports or the like, but is annoyingly uncitable. I may have to get the sources out of the library again, see what I can corroborate, and hack it to bits... Shimgray | talk | 11:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Hispania (1912)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of SS Hispania (1912) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Shipboxflag

Hi Mjroots, in case you haven't seen, {{shipboxflag}} is now being used to put a larger flag icon in the title bar of pages that use {{Infobox Ship Career}}. (For example, my recent edit to SS Europa (1928).) I think the idea is that there should be multiple sections for ships with careers under multiple nations, so you might want to split the infobox of the SS Uhenfels article, for example. User:Bellhalla is doing a lot of this update work. Cheers — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Norhauk DYK

Your DYK for SS Norhauk requires reply. Harrias (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Now verified, thanks! Harrias (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RMS Fort Victoria

Hi MJR-- I don't think this was a cruise ship (and predated the days of dedicated cruise ships), but rather an ocean liner or, according to Miramar, a passenger-cargo ship (and you know where that redirects!). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MV Anne Scan

Thanks for updating the article - that's the fastest I've seen an article updated after it was created!Autarch (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TS Leda

I haven't forgotten about the TS Leda article but I haven't done anything to it recently whilst seeing it through my first DYK. I see you have done over 100 so you are very energetic. Congratulations! I expect it gets easier with practice.

I have a bit more about Leda I can put in the article but I have found and ordered a book which claims to have something about the ship [1] so that might give a good additional source. The delivery is "2 - 3 weeks". Thank you for your infobox. Clearly you have access to some details I do not have (but commissioned 1940 looks odd, or wrong, to me). I'd be happy for the infobox to be in place now and I'd make some changes to the body of the text too. However, you said the infobox still needed a little work and it could be more compact (which would be good) so I do not want to preempt you. I'll leave things for now unless I hear from you or you put the infobox in place. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire Sandy

Any chance you could have a look at creating a ship info box for Empire Sandy. I've put some facts on the talk page, but the info box will be complicated in view of her total change of ship type! Thanks Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hull metrics

Mjr: Here is a useful link from the French Wikipedia on hull metrics. Depth and draught are often confused. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk, but as I read Lloyd's, the value is "creux", which translates to depth, rather than draught. Are there any other sources?
Nice work on the article, btw. Kablammo (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Empire Leopard

Empire Leopard redirects to USS West Haven (ID-2159). If you have a minute can you have a look at the info box which only covers the USS incarnation. Cheers Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Lloyds registers

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you in relation to the File:Abbey (1853).jpg image but I have been away for the last 2 weeks

I have found quite a number of the "Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping" on line through Google books

Although not a complete set it does have quite a number so if you know the years of construction or service you can do a manual search through the documents eg 1857 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RkASAAAAYAAJ&ots=IRgB1qew4o&dq=Lloyd's%20Register%20of%20British%20and%20Foreign%20Shipping&pg=PT4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Hope this is of help

Whodidwhat (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Crown Arun

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of SS Crown Arun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Bairn

Hi there, I've replied re SS Empire Bairn. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RMS Media

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of RMS Media at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Shipwreck

Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.38.209 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Loch Long

Thanks for that. I don't get to spend as much time on Wikipedia as I use to due to other things going on in my life at present (in the real world). But hopefully at some stage in the forseeable future I'll spend some more time on the article (still in my sandbox). Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Oak

Thanks for your interest. Last May, I accompanied John Clarke, who served on the Irish Oak to the Belfast commemoration for those who have no grave but the sea, it used to be for the Battle of the Atlantic. After the ceremony we were invited to the Royal Navy club. John was well received. I commented on this, thanking, a RN officer who said: "Don't you realize, he was the only veteran at the ceremony".

I will add some references to the article. Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you sprinkle some {{cn}} I should be able to dig up some refs ClemMcGann (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at ClemMcGann's talk page.
Message added 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I note a review at Talk:SS_Irish_Oak/GA1, He has a point about the prose, in places the reading is difficult, ClemMcGann (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category (year) ships

Thanks, I wondered about that after I changed it. Bonewah (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

U-607

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Bowman.

Can you take a quick look at the award area of the SS Empire Bowman? I attempted to cite it; however, I am not sure exactly who to credit the writing/speech to. It didn't look right to put the King's name there and the name of the individual who reads it is usually never given. Thanks Calmer Waters 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You may already be aware, but just wanted to let you know that the double hook has been approved and moved to the prep area. Kindly Calmer Waters

DYK nomination of SS Irish Pine (1919)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of SS Irish Pine (1919) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgard

ISL ceased to exist over 25 years ago! [2] ClemMcGann (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You are correct to say that ISL were initially managers of the Asgard. thereafter Coiste an Asgard were its managers ClemMcGann (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Hilda

Hey, Mjroots :) It looks like your nomination of SS Hilda is somewhat short of a 5x expansion. Are you still working on it? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MV Danny F II

Hello Mjroots. You and I were 'fixing' the same sentence of the MV Danny F II article at the same time (Al Mahmoud Orient). Just letting you know there is a little problem of repetition of data about the deaths. It is now in the first and last para. of the Sinking section. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was actually the last few IP edits that put the repeated data in. Was going to fix part of it (which you beat me to) then let HJMitchell know. He and I worked on the "Fort Hood Shooting" 'together'. The Al Mahmoud Orient(AMO) is at least in the right part of the world, HERE. (Didn't know you could track ships on the Internet!) However, I could not find any info re involvement in the rescue (only did a Google search). In fact the AMO is WAY over near Italy! While the MV Danny F II is(was) way over here ! Hope this helps. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alhambra (1853)

Mjroots I was hoping you could do me a favour I have stuffed up the naming of an article Alhambra (1853) it should have been Alhambra (1855) (it was hard to read the original registry scan that I had and then I found additional info to conclusively show it was launched in 1855) I have put off fleshing the article out till I get this corrected

I do not know how to rename articles once created. Can you either

1 Talk me through how to re name it or
2 If it requires privileges?? Are you able to re name it.

Thanks in advance Whodidwhat Whodidwhat (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You can rename the article by using the "move" tab. If you have any problems let me know but you should be able to do this yourself. If there are any redirects to the old title these will need to be fixed manually, use "fix double redirect" as an edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks You
"fix double redirect" I have done this for the hard linked stuff (in articles) do you do it for the autogenerated things like Wikipedia:New articles (Australia) (links) and User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult (links)
Thanks againWhodidwhat (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to fix any of the links to the article. A double redirect is where a previous title redirected to the old title, which itself is now a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up Best Regards Whodidwhat (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bergensfjord

Hi. Home Lines was headquartered in Genoa, does that make Genoa a port of registry for Bergensfjord? Manxruler (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into those things next year. Cheers and Happy New Year. Manxruler (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I know about warsailors, did use that for the article. Should info about the various convoys etc. be added? I'm struggling a bit with Plimsoll, though. Where do I find the code letters and such? Manxruler (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Yes, I've looked at some of the PDF files already, will search for the details you mentioned. I've found Bergensfjord at a Norwegian shipping website as well, they had some code letters, which I have added. I know how to use {{ICS}}, no problems at all. I might have to take a little break from editing today, have some stuff to take care of. Thanks again for the useful advice. Manxruler (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Bessemer

Thanks for the note: done. I should have specified - everything not otherwise identified comes from the main reference, Ch 10 in Bessemer's autobiography. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

LB&SCR ships

Hi MJRoots. I note you have been adding much useful information to the LB&SCR page regarding the ships. There is a certain amount of information on the shipping and ferry services in Acworth's article in Murray's Magazine (1888), pp.91-107 (pages 101-104 cover shipping). This does not always correspond with your information. Would you like me to email you a pdf file of this article? If so what address do I send it to?--Das48 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will work through my sources re LBSCR ships in due course although there were some other sections I want to add to the article (accidents, signalling) as well as some expansion elsewhere. In the meanwhile there are a couple of issues I would like to raise:

Firstly there appears to be a mistake regarding the second of the ships named Brighton which according to the table was built 1876 but out of service c. 1870. Klaus Marx, 'Robert Billinton an engineer under pressure' (Oakwood Press, 2008) p. 91 says "In January 1893 S.S. Brighton III collided with the West Pier at Dieppe, sustaining such damage as to sink". How does this statement fit in with the ships in the table?

Secondly, as there is so much information about LB&SCR shipping do you think it would be better to hive off the tables into a new article - List of LB&SCR shipping - where more information could be accommodated - with relevant links from the main article? What do you think?--Das48 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrier

J.T. Howard Turner, The London Brighton and South Coast Railway, vol 3. p.54, says "Eventually the LBSC Rly, which had taken over the Hayling Island Line in 1874, decided to purchase the [Langston] ferry, the deal being completed on 24 November 1886. However, the train-ferry service continued to be uneconomic, and finally ceased on 31 March 1888."

BTW there is a lot of LBSCR ships in Klaus Marx, Lawson Billinton a career cut short (2007) Oakwood Press and C. Hamilton Ellis The London Brighton and South Coast Railway (1960) Ian Allan.--Das48 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MV Shonan Maru 2‎

Thanks for the heads up, I'm just in middle of it and intend to use citeweb etc. GainLine 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy, S.S. Irish Oak! Re: copyedit...

I've glanced at the article and I'm willing to help you and ClemMcGann. How would it be if I leave notes for you both when I've finished a section or need further information for clarity? Cheers! Shir-El too 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shir-El too 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Sorry to ask so many questions (and will probably ask many more), but like you I want it to be right. Cheers, Shir-El too 06:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Left two questions and quitting for the weekend (more or less). Hope you have a Good One! Shir-El too 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Without further referenced info I'm done on Irish Oak. Will be happy to come back when there's more - let me know. Cheers! Shir-El too 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the next step? it has evolved a lot from [3] ClemMcGann (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sneakiness

Hi Mj. Sorry about the sneaky edits. I honestly didn't notice the "do not edit"-bit of the sign until after the last of my edits. I was going to wait until you were done, congratulate you on the brilliant update of the article, and apologize deeply for my unintentional intrusions. So, that's what I'm doing now: I'm sorry, it was completely unintentional. I hope I didn't create any edit conflicts for you. And very well done on the updating of the article. Hope you can forgive my slip-up. Manxruler (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most likely. Or just plain old luck. As I said, I really do apologize. I'm not used to seeing that specific tag, I usually come across Template:Under construction, and for some reason that's what I thought I saw now as well. Won't happen again. Manxruler (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sludge carrier

On a somewhat related subject; What exactly is a sludge carrier? Sounds interesting. Manxruler (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of two meanings for "sludge".
  1. Sewage sludge
  2. On the railways, steam locomotives need to have their boilers washed out periodically, in order to limit the build-up of scale. The mixture of water and limescale particles, which resembles mud, is known as "sludge".
A sludge carrier is a mobile tank used to carry the sludge to some place of disposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sounds logical. The only thing I'm getting google-wise is photos of smallish coastal vessels. Manxruler (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Ellengowan

Hey there, I was wondering if you could help me with an info box for this page. See here: User:Spy007au/Sandbox6. I was really impressed with the one you helped me with for the article Booya (ship). I have been absent from Wikipedia for a few months due to other stuff happening in my real life, but intend to start working on a few of my older sandbox articles very shortly. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Will complete the article in the next few days. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

U-boats

Thanks, I'll use that instead. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Sir Galahad

Thanks. I only wrote it because of the edit summary by the user who started the page on Round Table class trawlers. Once I started it was quite easy. There are some images, one very good, on the pages referenced but they aren't free :-( NtheP (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Barque Alf

Hello Mjroots

Thank you for making your valuable contributions to the article Barque Alf and for the nomination to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. I will watch with interest for any developments. I was impressed with the inclusion of the image you found of the Alf, well done!. I agree that the article would probable be better named Alf (barque).


 stavros1  ♣  15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SS Ragnhild

I've added a response to your comment on my talk page. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

SS Avondale Park

Thanks for the heads up. I have reviewed your nomination. Please have a look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Ships

Thanks for the invitation to participate in the ships list project. However, I must decline. First, my interests are so scattershot, I would not stay focused long enough to see it through, I'm afraid. I tend to dabble, not specialize. I do hope my work on the Park Ships was adequate, however. That was my first foray into the naval field where there are clearly many experts (such as yourself) and much interest. Second - my only source at the moment is a couple of Web sites which other users have thoroughly slammed. Don't want to go there ... Some day maybe I'll look up Syd Heal's book and build up the Parks Ship article. Best wished and thanks for your help with the article. Thanks also for your nice piece on the Avondale Park, BTW.I had never see the Lloyd's material before. Great stuff! Verne Equinox (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

I find your implications in this matter offensive. Implying that I cannot count (or perhaps that I cannot read) is hardly the way one user should treat another, much less one admin should treat another. The fact that one person tagged it for merge and that I did the merge means that at least two users supported it, not zero. Besides the discussions included a number of conditional supports as well as some opposes. But most importantly both articles were out-of-date, poorly written and, at some points, wrong. Merging them was the best thing to do for the sake of the encyclopedia. The fact that it was about to be linked from the main page made the matter an even higher priority. I notice and am disappointed that you have restored the article to the same poor condition it was in, without updating it. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Polar Chief

Was this ship converted into a dummy BB because Audacious had been sunk? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Angele

I have added an entry for a wreck on 12 November 1911 (according to the Doom Bar article another vessel had already sunk but a citation is lacking for that one).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Chincoteague

Awesome. Thanks! - The Bushranger (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ST Cervia II (Tugboat)

Hello Mjroots

I do intend to call the Article ST Cervia II (Tugboat) but my research has revealed that there was in-fact another Tug by this Name. ST Cervia I[4](here) had been owned by the same company that owned ST Cervia II, namely William Watkins Ltd. The earlier tug took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940 returning from there with 230 troops. I have so far been unable to establish her fate.  stavros1  ♣  21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

I'm not sure what you meant by vandalize? I added the word "initial" in front of reluctance, and corrected a spelling mistake in "lifeboats" section. I didn't add anything of significance beyond that, or delete any previous posts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.42.104 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I didn't understand that. There are plenty of sources to cite for the passengers reluctance, if it's ok to add. The most famous is probably "A Night To Remember" by Walter Lord, but there are numerous others available.

Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.42.104 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sea Serpent (clipper)

Glad this turned out and appreciate the encouragement. My guess is that one of the reasons coverage of merchant sail is so spotty (especially in the 1845-1860 period) is that we don't have a public domain DANFS source of encyclopedic articles to work from. As was pointed out, the public domain material is not in encyclopedic style.

A question for you: My interest is in digging out the basics on merchant sailing ships from books/websites and providing citations. How do I get a collaborator to work on the "wikify" piece of these articles? Djembayz (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that using "New Ship Article" as a sandbox title might do the trick. Makes sense. Djembayz (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WWII merchant navy gallantry awards

Since you're perhaps the most active editor on Merchant Navy vessels that served in the Second World War, I thought you might be interested to know that Series T 335 in the catalogue of The National Archives can now be searched by name of ship and/or name of recipient, see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp and simply enter the ship name in the "Word or phrase" field, and T 335 in the "Department or Series code field". If there are any hits, the file description will also tell you in which London Gazette the announcement of the award was made. David Underdown (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yours is the name I see coming up regularly at DYK, and asking questions at WT:MARITIME, so if anyone is working on the others, they're not as visible. Simply putting in Empire returns 64 hits, each individual list may then refer to more than one ship of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on move discussion

Can you take a look again at Talk:MS Caribbean Princess#Requested move? I'm still not seeing where in WP:NC-SHIPS supports using the prefix. The way I read it "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all seem to omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix. If you're using a different line in that guideline, can you help point it out, because I may be overlooking it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Moscow University

Autochthony writes - I hope this is a relevant part of your talk page; I was one of those made eredundant in 2008 by Novoship UK. I have worked as a Company Security Officer since the ISPS Code came in - having had to deal with another two security events whilst at Novoship [UK], but fortunately none in my present job. Re citadel - it's standard advice - see best management practice - http://www.marisec.org/piracy-gulf-of-aden-indian-ocean-industry-best-management-practice see 4(j). 1945z 6 May 2010.

P.S. cheers - and I note your interest in Mr Allingham. 81.156.52.159 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks

Yeah, whatever. Which is to say that so far I never had any nee to look into wp-convention on the matter, and my intention was nothing else but to take care of that disamb-issue. Without checking the whole list, am I safe to assume you took care of this distinction on all entries where necessary? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Should I ever create one, I'll keep it in mind. Thnx for the input. --G-41614 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Doggerbank

Thanks for the link, interessting stuff. Also noteworthy that the 1944 entry still makes no mention of her having been sunk in early 1943. Looks like it wasn't common knowledge yet at the time. Calistemon (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense and goes hand in hand with the German side, where the incident was supposingly covered up and removed from the log of U-43. It also explains while the lone survivor feared arrest, since he had done nothing wrong otherwise and would propably received a heros welcome, had Doggerbank not been sunk by an own ship! Calistemon (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Merchantile Marine in WWII

Back for Irish Merchantile Marine in WWII. Meet you on the Discussion page as before with Irish Oak? Cheers, Shir-El too 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking

I note you don't watch article talks, so I thought I'd let you know I responded to your comment on the proposed merge. SGGH ping! 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

PQ 17

Then that article contradicts itself, as it also says that 11 of the original 34 ships survived - or at least arrived at the convoy's destination. Also, I was trying to make sure the lead and infobox were actually in agreement... (and on second look I see teh same statement is also made in the lead of the PQ17 article itself). David Underdown (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The elven survivors seems to be specifically cited in the Order of Battle article, so I think we need to double-check all the lists and so on (I assume 34 is definitely the correct number of ships in the convoy?). David Underdown (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I’ve left a question on the PQ 17 talk page about the numbers, if you wish to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Mann

Yeah I'll put all the stuff in, apologies about that. All the best, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that suggested before but somebody keeps saying as it spent more time as Lady of Mann that's what the article should be called, however I do agree with you, we should change the article name. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
On another note, is there any chance we can protect the IoMSPC article, because I have had to sort it out three times because somebody keeps putting incorrect stuff on it, as with a few ferry articles. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the article. I've had a look and most of them seem to be about the Steam Packet Company, and it's a bit frustrating at times having to change it all back. Thanks for the advice, all the best, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well once I am on my summer holidays I intend to do a lot of work on Wikipedia relating to the Steam Packet. I think the Steam Packet Ships template is much better than what it was, the only thing being with the Seatruck Ferries work was that the Steam Packet have had a lot of ships in comparison, and there's not much information available for the pre-1900s ships, but I'll give it a go. Cheers, JamesSteamPacket (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Lady of Mann; I’ve made a proposal (as it were) under BRD, which you may have noticed. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS Ernst Brockelmann

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of SS Ernst Brockelmann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RMS Mulheim

Nice work - thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots, Thank you very much for helping me with MV RMS Mulheim. I added you as creator to my DYK nomination here . I hope it is OK with you. BTW, if you'd like to change the hook, please do. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I apologize for the fuss. After your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, I saw no reason not to correct the issue. As you see, I stand by my opinion about what is correct, but I will not force the issue. Just one qst left now - did you rework all the links (will see into it), and if not, should I take care of it? After all, I started it ... Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What?!? Forget it. That wasn't a discussion, that was a short exchange of POV. Dank's position is inadequate. Basically the outcome is, have one writer/journalist/whatever make a mistake, then let all others follow like sheep. This was supposed an attempt at an encyclopedia, not "let's write whatever a mass of Randys comes up with". "Generally, I am in favour of using diacritics where it is verifiable that these were used ..." is the perfect reason to leave the article where I put it (which is why I'm a bit surprised by your action). It is more than verifiable - as you said yourself, there they are right on the stern of the ship, rust notwithstanding. Google as source should not be overrated - most we get from there is articles copied from articles copied - I assume you get my drift. I would at this point like to cite an event that happened in Germany. Shortly after his inauguration, someone changed the name of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, merely by adding another middle name. Next day, his "new" name was all over the press. Media as sources? Only if nothing else is to be had (like a picture of the object in question). Ok, this point needs to be made elsewhere. But far as I'm concerned, this is a case for WP:IAR, not WP:NC. Despite the redirects, I would like to add a bit about the correct name (like: correct name: RMS Mülheim, or some such) to the intro. Not all readers will come via redirects. In the meantime, I'll look into the links. And just so I'm clear, despite my misgivings I'll leave the status quo as such. I apologize for any inconvenience. You're a bit faster than me. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RL's calling, so brief - ok, think I understand how this came when you think there was another re-naming. Added at discussion. Will look over links later. C U, --G-41614 (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, that copy-paste-thing was a clear f***-up on my part. Next time, I'll just move. In between, I'll just see what happens. So long.

I see. Right now I'm wondering about what to do with the discussion at all. I started out with a general qst, but now it's focused solely on the Mülheim, which should be placed at the talk page of the article. I've added an entry there, so far just for protocol. --G-41614 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) With the exception of the templates, which I'm not familiar with, most links changed.
Hi, it's not a bad article, it just has a number of grammatical and language issues; I'd fix them myself but I'm busy at work at the moment. I'll have a look at lunch or this evening if I'm able. I'd also like an expansion on why the chief officer was knocked unconscious. Harrias talk 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Solved most of the problems I'd come across. Wasn't particularly enamoured with Mbz1's removal of the copy-edit tag, and general attitude, but hey ho, we work with all sorts here! Correct me if I made any mistakes; I essentially re-wrote the first paragraph of the 'loss' section. Still not to keen on the number of times the article uses 'The ship..' to start sentences, but can't really think of ideal alternatives without stretching a point and possibly going beyond my knowledge. Harrias talk 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
They weren't 'for patches'?! Oh dear, there goes my copy-editing barnstar ;) Despite my apparent negativity regarding this article, I do think it is some good work! Caught my eye because I come from down that way (my Dad used to be, and my brother now is, based at RNAS Culdrose). Harrias talk 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ships Signpost Interview

WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg

Hello Mjroots/Archive. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Ships and wanted to let you know that per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, we have decided to feature the project on July 5. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, monosock 04:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

RMV Scillonian III

Hello, I have edited this today and noticed that the name of the category on "Commons" does not match the article title. Would that be because categories have different naming conventions from articles, or it it something that may need changing. ("Commons" does not have anything for the first two vessels though someone has now added an image of Scillonian II to that article.) Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think the Scillonian images are in the right articles (though only Scillonian III appears in Commons; Scillonian I & II both do in Wp). I found the different varieties of flags rather puzzling (and practice varies in different countries) so may not have got them all right. I would rather not do much editing of Commons; the regulations for en:wikipedia are more than enough. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Struma

Hi Mjroots, that's fine. My move comment was a typo, I meant to say that I couldn't find a source explaining why it was named "SS Struma" (or its original history as a cattle ship). Also, when googling, I searched for "The Struma" excluding "SS Struma" and came up a with a lot more references than for "SS Struma" alone, so overall the "SS Struma" seems to be far less common than "The Struma". But I have no problem for it to be the way it is now, as long as "The Struma" is a redirect. Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MV/MS Azura

Yes, there was a reason for the change. The person who originally did the move stated that it was to show uniformity with other ships in the fleet. I do not agree with this however, because the company always use the prefix MS to identify the ship, so that should be the one used on Wikipedia. It makes no difference that MS/MV can be used interchangeably, we have to assume that Wikipedia users don't know this, so someone looking for information on MS Azura, may be confused with MV Azura when the company do not use that prefix. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again, I shall remember to request such changes properly in future. But I would just like to ask if you could also change MV Ventura, which should also be MS rather than MV. Thanks one more time. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags for Clipper Ship City of Adelaide

Hello Mjroots, Thanks for fixing up my addition of Code Flags, I was unaware of that Code Flag template - very nice. With your second change from UK Flag to UK Flag I suspect that change was not correct. My rationale is that the City of Adelaide was removed from the Register on the 7th of February 1895 (after having been derigged in 1893) and so from then up until being commissioned as a training ship in 1922 she was nothing more than a civil 'building' albeit still afloat. Therefore, the Civil Ensign is not appropriate and an 'undo' is necessary. What do you think? Yours Aye, --Cruickshanks (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Ryanna

Ahoy Mjroots, I note that you added "21 January Republic of Ireland Ryanna Cargo ship Ran aground then sank" to the article List of shipwrecks in 1940. Would you have more information on this ship? before I include it in Irish maritime events during World War II - Regards - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rynanna - the spelling explains. I have some info. Before the war she had a Limerick - Cardiff - Antwerp route. (Agriculture from Limerick (sometimes Cork or Galway) to UK, Coal from Cardiff to Europe, Cement from Antwerp) - for Ardnacrusha - she was carrying cement from Antwerp to Limerick when lost - RYNANNA, ex THERESA, ON 128890 - thanks again - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I added two other Limerick SS Co ships. - Just wondering - is "Operator" the correct heading? The operator would be a company, rather than a country. - ClemMcGann (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
and thanks for your attention to Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II - someday I'll seek GA for it - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Nomadic (1911)

Can this tender (with almost no freeboard!) really be classed as an "ocean going" merchant ship? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

surely not!! - where is that written? - ClemMcGann (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Dubai Moon

Thanks for pointing me towards the Fakta om Fartyg information. I haven't been around much for the last couple of months but I will get around to adding it to the article. Best wishes. Jll (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


MS Pride of Rotterdam

Do you have a translation of the Swedish text used as a source for that article? I think you added it [5], and per WP:NONENG when citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. I found several Dutch sources; one a news article from 20/04/01 saying that the ship would be christened on the 27th[6], and one a magazine piece saying it was indeed christened on the 27th[7] so I would be interested to see a translation of the Swedish to see where the disparity lies. Apologies should I have gotten the wrong editor. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see - I wasn't sure if the site was inaccurate, but it seems ok. The problem was an incorrect representation of it's text. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

offical -> official

I notice that in many of the Empire ship pages there is a recurring "United Kingdom Offical Number". I correct it when I see it, but I suddenly got worried. As this is so prevalent, can it be that this is actually a valid spelling in this context? It almost seems like a template of sorts. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a typo in my sandbox which kept getting repeated until I fixed it. Mjroots (talk)

Blackpool shipwrecks

Hi. I came across Blackpool shipwrecks doing B-class assessments and it struck me that it might be better named List of Blackpool shipwrecks. Any feelings on this? HausTalk 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)== PQ 18 OOB ==

Hello Mj
Regarding the PQ18 OOB/Jonas Poole/ Spits/zbergen row; I’m presumably either the “asshole” or the “dumbfuck editor” he’s referring to (or maybe both); am I supposed to comment anywhere? I'm bothered if you're taking some flak over this: any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I reverted another change that came in under the wire; I trust that's OK for me to do. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We have now created an internal inconcistency which mean that the Wikipedia article on Spitsbergen states that the article on PQ18 OOB contains false information. Rather than change the article on Spitsbergen, which has a source to say why Spitsbergen is the correct spelling, could you please expand on the evidence you have for Spitzbergen being the common name. Could you do it over at the PQ 18 articles talkpage please, because right now that page has an administrative declaration saying that Spitzbergen simply is the common name and warning all who disagree, despite this being at odds with Wikipedias coverage of the topic, and the reliable sources. Weakopedia (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again;
I notice you’ve reverted my revert of Jonas’ revert of your revert, with the edit summary “RV to spelling "Spitzbergen" per talk page, my talk page and pending RFC”, which leaves the spelling as “Spitsbergen”.
Were you wanting it that way round? Is the edit summary a spelling slip?
I would suggest that putting it that way round makes a nonsense of the ref notes, which point to sources that say the exact opposite.
And if its under discussion, Shouldn’t it be at the status quo ante ( which would be this)?
On the substantive issue, I've replied here. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I’ve raised this issue again here, as I think it needs resolving, at least temporarily.
Ideally I’d like the old spelling restored, if only because I think bad behaviour shouldn’t be rewarded: But if it makes more sense to you to remove the notes we should do that.
I suppose the other consideration if the spelling is changed is that in a week the whole thing could blow up again; but that may be no bad thing in the long run.
Anyway, I've left a new section over there about it. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair point (and I apologize if I’m being too pushy/ putting you on the spot)
I thought I'd try the bold thing with the RfC but am unclear .a) how to go about it (never done one before) or .b) what exactly is it I want comment on. I’ve made a start here; any advice, comment, a rescue bid, welcome! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


East Indiaman Albemarle

Hello, The Albemarle is mentioned in the Polperro article as being wrecked there, probably in 1817, but I have not been able to find verification. Can you suggest a resource which might help with this? I put this on the talk page for Polperro "Parts of the harbour were rebuilt after destruction by a violent storm in 1817. The East Indiaman Albemarle was blown ashore near Polperro with her valuable cargo, although the precise location of the wreck was never established." Presumably the shipwreck was caused by the same storm but it would be useful to have more detail and a reliable citation.--Felix folio secundus 09:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--Felix folio secundus 09:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I suspect the original newspaper stories may be quite hard to find as so far as there is no date. Perhaps there would be a good book on the history of East India Company shipping which might mention it; and I will try Couch's "History of Polperro" which I have only in an abridged edition.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Albemarle, cont'd

Hello, It was only the position of the text that gave the date 1817 and I have now found that 1704 is more likely. Only one Albemarle/Albermarle is listed in Sutton's book. Access to the Cornish newspapers would be difficult anyway as I am not in Cornwall but Manchester. Couch's "History of Polperro" would probably mention it. "The East Indiaman Albemarle was blown ashore near Polperro with her valuable cargo, although the precise location of the wreck was never established.".--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Royal Navy ship names

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Arsonal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Arsonal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MV Mariam

Hi. Pending the AfD discussion, I've made a WP:DYK nomination for MV Mariam. As a contributor to the article, I've listed you as an author on the nomination. I'm not 100% sure of the etiquette here, but if you would prefer not be be on the nomination, please feel free to remove yourself, or leave a message on my talk page and I would be happy to do so. HausTalk 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ships and buildings

I adore ship articles, and have a particular fondness for the age of fighting sail. A fifty passernger ship that is hardly described on the stub page seemed a little beneath the usual standards to me. I would think that it needs a little substantiation. and when I tried searching news and even web excluding the term"gaza" to get some idea of what the ship had done before this purchase as an aid ship, I found nothing at all. With buildings, many new buildings are notable for their architecture, and many old ones for historic roles not recognized by listing agencies. I would have no objection if the ship had actually done something, like sailed as a blockade runner. But at this point it seems more like an effort to hype publicity for a planned event that may never occur.AMuseo (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only Bolivian cargo ship? Well, I did did look after you or someone asserted that ships never get deleted, and could find very few contemporary merchant ships, although there must be tens of thousands of such ships. Other modern work ships like tugs and ferries also seemed to have scarcely any articles. The person who put up this page is a fairly obvious recent sockpuppet (or if a genuine new user, an awfully fast learner.) He has put up a series of articles that have been speedily deleted. Look at his talk page [8]. I doubt that you see this much in ships, but in Israel/Palestine we get a constant flow of articles like this one, often form new users. They pretend to be about all sorts of things, but are merely coatracks upon which to hang propaganda for one side or the other. It gets tiresome. And I suspect that we are about to have propaganda articles about every ship that gets leased to sail to Gaza. I really believe on the merits it would be better to give each a paragraph in the Free Gaza Movement or some similar collective article. Especially, the ones that, like this. gor leased (or was it purchased?) and now look unlikely ever to sail on this mission.AMuseo (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That is the problem with Israel/Palestine on Wikipedia. Too few non-propagandists editing in this area. So the propagandists have an open playing field.AMuseo (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ship AfDs

How would you like to order the list? I think chronological was your first idea and alphabetical was mine. It doesn't matter to me, and I'd be happy to reorder it, but I'd rather not do it twice. :) Cheers. HausTalk 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Golfo Azzurro

Yes, I still want a userfied version of this article. Thank you, UB65 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Avrazya

You did so much work on the Mariam, that I hope that you will help edit an article for the Avrazya, the ship that was hijacked by Islamist militants in the Black sea in 1996 Black Sea hostage crisis.AMuseo (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I used google translate, but while it has this ship being converted for use as a car ferry, sold to Trukey and sailing out of Trabizond, which was the port form this the ferry was departing when the hijacking took place, the sale was in 1997. the hijacking was in 1996. Moreover the name is wrong. It says "1997 05th Sold to Karden Line, Istanbul, Turkey. Renamed KARGEM." Further down the page we find "2000th Sold to Trabzon Birlesik Denizcilik ve Ticaret, Turkey. Renamed AVRASYA II." So it looks as though this was the second Avrasya owned by a Turkish shipping or ferry-operating firm. And that we are looking for a different ship that was already in Turkey and called the Avrasya in 1996.AMuseo (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. Variant spellings appear in reports of the hijacking. But you have found the ship. Will you now edit this material in? If you're doing that now, I'll go do something else.AMuseo (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Left note for you at AMuseo's talk- think Avrasya is same ship. Djembayz (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Added photo links, wikilink. Called it C-class for now, will leave it to others to assess coverage / NPOV. You've done a lot of work! Djembayz (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that information on the MV Avrasaya.AMuseo (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It should be MV Avrasya. See http://www.faktaomfartyg.nu/avrasya_I_1953_b_1.htm, read the name on ship in the image. I think it's the same ship here, it's registered Aydemirler transportation company:http://www.aydemirler.com/default.asp?current=nak&lang=tr We should move it to MV Avrasya again, an admin can help. (Btw, I have added the names of hijackers) Kavas (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Turkish press and television used the name Avrasya in 1996. Here is a scan of 18.01.1996 issue of Turkish daily Milliyet: [9]. Although it is a low quality scan, you can see the name Avrasya on the ship as you look at the photo which was taken in 1996 carefully. (I can see only 7 letters, but I cannot see 8 letters on it.) Once again, I have read Milliyet newspaper from 17 to 20 January 1996. The newspaper used Avrasya name on these issues, indeed on any issue. Kavas (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A note: According to Milliyet (issue on 10.07.1992), a ship named Avrasya was hijacked without any political reason on 10.07.1992. The ship was hijacked by its passengers who had been kept hungry and thirsty by crew on a voyage between Venice and Kuşadası. Kavas (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

MV Mi Amigo, at DYK.

Hi, just wanted to let you know I've reviewed your submission to DYK. I think it's good to go, but I've moved it from under the September 3rd header to under the September 2nd header, based on the article's history. Thanks for contributing to DYK! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
As asked I had a small go at cleaning up the "Early History" of the Mi Amigo - checked the refs and they are still good.
As for the rest of it ...... Much looks valid - a general re-write might not come amiss. Unfortunately I havent time. I see some pl_nkers' had a go with Ronan O'Rahilly and the {{cn}} marker --Keith 14:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ship naming discussion

I thought you might like to know that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) has moved on considerably since you contribution on 15 September. After reading your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Italics_in_article_titles on 23 September, I thought you might appreciate a quick pointer. Shem (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgica

Hi Mjroots, Yep, the source you used says that between 1916 and 1917 she was called Isfjord, but a number of Norwegian sources I've looked at (here's a newspaper article, for example, here's another mention) say that in 1918 or so she was renamed back to Belgica by her new owner, Kristian Holst. The scuttling cause is probably the correct one, though, as I can't find info on the ship being sunk by German aircraft in the book Flyalarm by Sten Stenersen, which is a recognised work on the air war over Norway. Harstad was bombed on the 19th, but she is not listed among the sunken ships. She might have been damaged that day, though, which may have led to later misunderstandings. I now also think she was scuttled, in June 1940 when the Franco-British forces pulled out of Norway. WIll go and change that.

With regards to the linked article, I couldn't agree more. I was thinking about splitting them myself, and then expand the original Belgica.

By the way, there's something I been thinking of asking you for a while now, what system do you use when you name ship articles where the ship has had more than one name? That's something that often causes me some headache.

Cheers! Manxruler (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with regards to ship names. I keep finding sources that say Belgica was sunk in Brurvika Bay near Harstad on 19 May (an example with a reference, so I think the present solution, with both possible causes of loss presented, is the best one. Manxruler (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Great work on the Belgica article. One very important thing, though: The ship wasn't scuttled by the Franco-British Expeditionary forces when they evacuated from Harstad on 19 May because they didn't withdraw from Harstad on 19 May. The allies only left Harstad around 7-8 June 1940, when they withdrew fully from Norway. So that combination of sources (one for the probable scuttling and one for the date) doesn't work. We have to find another way of doing that section. If scuttling is the way to go, and I think both causes really should be mentioned, then we can't use the 19 May date. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. What I'll do then is to search for sources on the Allied evacuation of Harstad (the evacuation was linked to Operation Alphabet), and see if the date of the evacuation can be added. I'll also keep on looking for sources on Belgica in 1940. I too believe the likely course of events to have been that she was bombed on the 19th (probably damaged, beached even), and then scuttled when the Allies withdrew. Manxruler (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ship collision

Wow, that and the danube toxic sludge - the european media have something to feed on this weekend - some weekends leave them scratching to find stories - cheers for the tip SatuSuro 08:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sort of reads like an april fools joke story - the ship name for a start - Sky news source. SatuSuro 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the wire services that are used for and or bay the main Australia media are not even carrying the story yet ... SatuSuro 09:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They are now SatuSuro 10:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

QE

You added an edit war warning to my talk page without good reason. Since you obviously have difficulty counting beyond the number two (I have only ever made two edits to the QE page, and not on the same day or even on successive days) the warning about edit wars and three reverts per day was both inappropriate and aggressive, since a study of the record will show that I have never, ever made three edits on any single day to any article. You are reminded that even administrators are obliged to show good faith. You should apologise for a hasty and unwarranted intervention.

Afterwards you might turn your attention to the text of the QE article. Much of it (and esp the service history section) reads almost like a PR handout from the shipping line. I do sometimes wonder if some contributors (unlike myself) are Cunard or Carnival employees or PR staff. George.Hutchinson (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK - SS Vestris

Thanks Mjroots, that's kinda cool. I feel unaccountable proud of my first article now :) Sladew (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for help SS Dresden

Bit of a novice in the ship department but have just created SS Dresden (1897) any help with infobox and the like appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FV Athena - Inquiry at WT:RUSSIA

"Are they relevant?" - yes. Are they worth inclusion (apart from database numbers and dates) - not really. It was a grand fraud and a can of worms, no doubt, but the texts are not reliable from BLP standpoint (or any other). East of Borschov 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oak

The name of the Irish State for that period was Éire. As can seen in the painting of the Irish Oak, Éire was painted on the hull of the ship. Thanks--MFIrelandTalk 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tankers

Hi Mjroots. There's something I've been meaning to ask you for some time now. Regarding tank ships, what prefixes are we meant to use? I've seen several variants in use, so I'm unsure. For example, what prefix do we use for a diesel engined tank ship? MT? MS? MV? The same thing goes with steam tankers. SS or ST? Some advice would be appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Useful feedback. Very good point about the ST prefix. Manxruler (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SS Persier

I added it to the assessment requests page for review. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Kalmbach (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quest

Thank you for your e-mail about the Quest (ship). The RV Belgica (1884) consolidated infobox looks like it is put together well. One factor to keep in mind is that the Quest work up until now has utilized the flags actually flown by the vessel, including the boat's right to fly the White Ensign independently of its port of registry. Bigturtle (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the infobox, which is seriously superior to the boxes currently posted. Please make the replacement, but also consider making the following changes: (a) "Name" In the current infobox draft, the ship's final name Quest is credited to the ship from 1946 until 1961; consider making this 1946-62; (b) in the current draft, the ship is identified as being in service as a "sealer" from 1946 until 1961; consider 1946-62; (c) for Fate "sank", consider "sank (or "foundered") in Labrador Sea". Also - was the Quest still schooner-rigged after it was dieselized in 1939? I'm not sure. Bigturtle (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Bigturtle (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lancs & Yorks Rly vessels

Hi Mj: would like your opinion re this edit - good or bad? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK help for Sunny South (clipper)

Hi Mj: I want put in a DYK for Sunny South (clipper). Here is my hook so far. Not sure about nominating and reviewing DYKs yet or writing hooks, can you assist?

The Sunny South (also called Emanuela or Manuela), captured in 1860 with a cargo of over 800 slaves, was considered the fastest ship sailing out of Havana, and one of three American-built clipper ships in the 1850s slave trade?

SS Alesia

Superb job, BTW! Toddst1 (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SS Cotopaxi

Hi Mj, nice work on SS Cotopaxi. Just as a heads-up, I tried a google news search with a date range of 1925-1927 and found several freely available articles on the ship. Crew names, owners, manifest, build dates, etc, etc... I'm not sure that I'll have time to devote to the article, but that search seems like plenty to stave off deletion. Cheers. HausTalk 07:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Constance

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 06:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello

Hi, I should like to thank you for all your work on the Constance. I recently came across an interesting story on a Spanish galley which was a part of the Armada. There were a mutiny during the storm and it lead to another mutiny on another galley in the fleet. I have but one source thus far, do you think this would make for a notable article? I do not want to have to have another AFD. I am watching your talk page so as to see any response, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say whether or not you have enough material for an article. Would the info be suitable for inclusion in the Spanish Armada article? Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I found another source, there is a poem based on the incident. I shall write it up in userspace, perhaps if you have a moment you might take a look? Tentontunic (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comus class template

Mjroots
I've taken the liberty of reverting your change to Template:Comus class corvettes. I don't think the distinction by rig is supportable here; although the article says they were built as ship- and barque-rigged vessels, the only difference is a couple of yards on the mizzen, and captains on distant stations did as they pleased when it came to details of rigs. See Note 11 in the Comus class corvette article. The picture of HMS Cordelia (1881) shows her ship-rigged, although she was of the later batch. I suggest this makes the distinction purely academic, if you see what I'm getting at. Shem (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. Shem (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Akra Aktion --> Empire Strength

I prodded Akra Aktion but later found Empire Strength. They seem to be the same ship but I'm not sure if there is anything in the Akra Aktion article that could be salvaged for Empire Strength. Brad (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Railway Company ships

The Great Western Railway has an article on ships: Great Western Railway ships, which includes a list of ships but all red-linked. So no category warranted (yet?). Of the four companies, only the the LNER does not seem to have had any ships Hugo999 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SS Great Western

Hi, I would like you to revert your move of SS Great Western to SS Great Western (1838) and to instead create SS Great Western (disambiguation). My reasoning is that a rather large number of articles link to SS Great Western and they will have to have their links changed now. The SS Great Western was Brunel's first ship and is the best known ship of that name. My reading of the guidelines on disambiguation is that the main (and only article) should remain unmoved and the disambiguation page (with a suitable hat link on the SS GW page) would be the best solution. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

West Saginaw

On SS West Saginaw if you could expand the lead section the article would be an easy B-class. Thanks. Brad (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the lede a little, although ledes are not my strong point. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; it's better. Brad (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of MV Portaferry II for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MV Portaferry II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Portaferry II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

MV Anne Scan

[10] Moldova or Moldavia? 91.85.165.78 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moldavia as far as I know. Unfortunately, Miramar is now subscription only, and I don't have a subscription. Will ask at WT:SHIPS for confirmation of this. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Batavia

Thanks. I stumbled upon it & didn't realize that it was already being watched before I did the first edit...so I didn't revert. But, I'll let you take care of it now! :) Hal3ko (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Convoy OB 318

Hi
Thanks for your note; I've had a go at referencing this (though it isn't my strong suit; I'm never sure how much is enough) can you have a look and let me know what needs doing? Thanks. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Empire Deed

Mjroots - the b2=no on the article is due to the length of the WWII section (not to gaps in its history). I believe this article could rise up to be rated a B class but the majority of the editors who assess the B class nominations do not like long sections. I would recommend making subsections of WWII into maybe voyages or years. (Not to up on the seafaring terminology). Also note that we are internally debating using the c class designation and maybe this time those of us who support it use will receive the vote. Many articles are above start and the writers should be recognized for their effort. Plus with a C-class rating hopefully many more could be pulled up to B-class. From what I read; this article could make that cut with a little fine tuning to what the majority of the editors who due the B-class stuff are looking for. And of course a good heavy dose of inline-citations. Bottom line this article is easily in my opinion a C-class with a little love and effort making it to B-class.Oldwildbill (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No way they like the details especially signifying its military role. From what I have gather as long as one section fits the screen they are happy. If they scroll the mousewheel eeek!!.
What I was thinking was kinda like this - renaming history to Construction. Making WWII a main heading then sub heading under it kinda like 1943 - 1944 - 1945; then flowing into main heading Post war. I am willing to work this with you (as long as one does not mind constructive criticism). They are pretty rough on the B class (sometimes they can be full of themselves laugh) but once it makes through it ain't that hard to get a good article. (I see that you have a lot DYK's) and an are admin but like I say this has potentional. Some believe only the big news item should make it but it was a the little cogs that made the big story possible.(plus anyone who worked those ships during convoys ahould get a pat on the back) So the details are good. Its the eyecandy and the flow that makes the article.Oldwildbill (talk) 10:45,9 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I am getting towards the end of a 24 hour shift. Let me take a look at it later today after some sleep. I am pretty good at re working what people are trying to put down (plus the doc says it good for me to get back into the things that interest me). Yes it is time consuming but when the burden is shared it makes it a lot easier. Also I like finding out about these little facets of history and time is running out for the WWII guys. Hopefully that online site that you mention comes back up. Naval is not my strong suit but I am always willing to learn. You also got a lot of articles - I don't - I usually work in the trenches with the writers to improve them - don't need the glory - just the enjoyment. Give me about 36 hours and see if you like the way I take the article.Oldwildbill (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for MV Empire Dawn

Gotcher message—good to hear from you again. Will make adjustments. While the sinking location is indeed more southerly than that of Cape Town, the map makes it look due west. Checking the latitudes and longitudes shows that it's about 5 nm south, but 1,000 nm west, of Cape Town city hall (the actual cape may be farther south...). That's pretty much west in my book, especially if you're using a 32-point compass rose. Keep up the good work! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd

I'm drafting an article about Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd. The Burntisland.net website includes a history of the company and shipyard and a very useful complete list of ships built. However, I have been unable to resolve discrepancies between Wikipedia material about two ships with details of them on on the Burntisland.net list.

  • Burntisland.net and WP agree that hull 336 was launched in 1950 as the coaster MV London and spent the next 16 years as MV Winsor Trader. WP adds that she then traded under four other names until being renamed in 1998 MV Adolphus Busch, which is the name under which her WP article appears. However, WP has also a redirect for MV Winsor Trader that leads to the US Navy ship Empire State V, which seems to have nothing in common with hull 336 apart from being launched in about the same year.

Many merchant ships get renamed, many names get re-used and this sometimes creates potential for confusion. However, in these two cases I am unable to verify whether everything on either WP or Burntisland.net is correct. Please will you help me to resolve the apparent discrepancies for these two ships? Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help with these queries. I have now created he article as Burntisland Shipbuilding Company, drawing mainly on Grace's Guide and Burntisland.net. I've created a number of links to the article and also one to its counterpart on German WP.
A spate of cancelled orders suggests the Burntisland company must have faced a serious crisis in 1959–60. Do you know if was a wider crisis in British merchant shipping or World shipping at about that time? Half of the cancelled orders were from Power Steam Ship Co, associated with someone called O. Gross. I don't know who this is but I wonder if Gross's business interests went into receivership at that time.
The company's financial crisis over the MV Ohrmazd in 1967–69 seems another rather fraught tale that deserves further elucidation. Hansard includes various comments on Burntisland's plight, particularly during and after the company's liquidation, but it will take a while for me to sift through the Parliamentary comments and see what they can add to the shipyard's history.
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for all your suggestions on sources. I've now sifted Hansard from which I've been able to add a 20-year saga of political anxiety from 1959 to 1979 over the future of the Burntisland yard and the town that so largely depended on it. As to individual ships, I've given the article what I hope is a strategic selection of redlinks to some of the ships that may be of particular historical interest and therefore perhaps deserve individual articles in due course.
I've now spent as much time on Burntisland as I dare. I must urgently get back to my work that I've been neglecting in the real World!
Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Elbe

I’m afraid I cant help you with this one as I know longer have the postcard of this ship. It seems to have gone missing when I recently moved house!Stavros1 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my experience, this often happens; and unpacking after a move always turns up stuff that went missing two or three moves ago. I recommend that you move house again. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, never mind. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Hazel / Empire Don

is this useful ? [11] Lugnad (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Found it!!! :) its in Frank Forde's book: [12] - Lugnad (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

Sorry, I didn't notice that AWB had moved the flag icon to the start just for UK & US for some inexplicable reason. It wasn't something I did intentionally. I've repeated my edit but without thise two changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

SS Ava

Hi - I have made the changes suggested by you. Can you check to see that I have done everything right, as I've never used that template before. (I'm not sure that the references are now appropriate for a Dab page, but I'm reluctant to lose them until the other ships have articles. If that ever happens). Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MV Arcadia

Apology, slipped through the net whilst using AWB. --palmiped |  Talk  08:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New Holland-Hull ferry

Hi, I've added some stuff to Hull Victoria Pier railway station - one of those curiosities like Dartmouth railway station of a railway booking office but neither platforms nor tracks. The MS&LR, succeeded by the GCR and then the LNER, operated the ferries - but what happened after nationalisation? I've put "Sealink" into the routebox. Edit at will! --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ross Tiger

Hi there. Your comments on my Ross Tiger article are bang on. I've let my concerns for the subject carry me off and bent the rules a little. I'll investigate more sources and fix it. Regards, Dornsby (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA Wave Chief (A265)

Hi, the information on the page is from more than Colledge Vol 2. The "full" entry in Colledge is WAVE CHIEF (ex-Empire Edgehill) Harland & Woolf, Govan. 30.8.46 BU 1974. I don't have the same edition as is referenced in the article but if you want to change the citation it's

Re: Ship articles

Hi there - no problems, I will do that in future. Thanks JamesSteamPacket (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens again

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Shipwreck lists

Hi Mjroots. I see that you are making good headway with converting the shipwreck pages to list format. Fine work. One thing, though, do you have to add "World War II:" in front of every single ship that was lost in connection with the Second World War? As I see it, it looks extremely repetitive and tedious. When a shipwreck list deals with the years 1939-45, most shipwrecks are bound to have something to do with the war. Do we really need to repeat that statements hundreds of times? Manxruler (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's better when there's an action/campaign mentioned in addition to the war. Still, that's one awfully large number of "World War II"s. And the flags of the ships doing the sinking still has a cluttering effect, in my opinion. Manxruler (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah, mate. Having given it some thought, I guess it's fine. If we can get loads of campaigns and actions mentioned, then that's nice. I was never one for initiating reforms anyway. Manxruler (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

MV Kronprinsen

I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article MV Kronprinsen--However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: some of the article's Wikilinks are broken. Amy Z (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going through articles rather systematically, and the actual nature of the red-links didn't quite click. I'll pay more attention next time. Thanks, Amy Z (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerning MV Empire Faith

MJroots,

Upon review of the article MV Empire Faith, you are correct that I incorrectly assessed the article. I apologize for the confusion. I was working on reducing an un-assessed article backlog and it appears I made a mistake.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

SS Empire Duke

Thanks for the grammar sort out. However, do you know if it had first a 4-inch then a 4.7-inch (or vice versa) or did it have one or the other but no-one knows which ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Awa Maru renaming

I disagree with your rename of Awa Maru (1943) to MV Awa Maru (1943). The MOS ship naming convention doesn't use MV when the ship is known by a single name. The second word, Maru, is also an indicator. The Awa Maru is an infamous ship. NSA does not us MV: see http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/sinkingawa_maru.pdf - Glrx (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Empress

Don't be so quick to jump in and fix a problem. I'd already noticed that I'd forgotten the year and was adding more material when you caused an edit conflict and I lost all my changes. Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SS Ruth Kellogg

I was looking at some of the type and ran across the Ruth Kellogg piece. There was a cite error that I cleaned up. There is a remaining problem you as prime contributor should be able to clean up easily. In the body, where I cleaned up the cite, MBSA is given while in the table "Code Letters MBSN (1929-34)" covers that period. Probably a typo. Palmeira (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ships lists

Wow, you sure work fast! Looking at your layout I am having second thoughts about my approach. I had wanted to use 'wars' for sections with an informative small lede for each war, but have reservations about having all the 'Captured Ships' lists being so different. What are your thoughts in that regard? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See response to your previous message to me here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1940 shipwrecks

Thanks, Mj. I'm very interested in the 1940 shipwrecks, as I'm sure you know. Right now I'm on the road travelling, so I don't have very much time to spend on the project.

One thing, though, please don't put much confidence in wrecksite.eu. The site is full of errors. Amongst many other examples, wrecksite places the sinking of Rio de Janeiro on 8 September when she was in reality sunk on 8 April. The sub that sank her disappeared in May 1940. Also, they list Rio de Janeiro as a steam ship when she was a motor ship. Just one reason why I deeply distrust that site. I can't for the life of me believe that that site is a reliable source. Manxruler (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're better than nothing. What I usually do is completely disregard the actual information on wrecksite (except the ship name and year of sinking), then double check navalhistory against Miramar Ship Index (which also contains some errors) and books (where there are a couple of errors from time to time too) to make sure. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding captured ships

Hi MJ', found a ship for the List of ships captured in the 18th century, posted it on the talk page in the format (+ -) used by the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you removed the 'do not edit' tag so I went ahead an added 'Croyable' to the 1790's section, using page's format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cymric (schooner)

ta very - Lugnad (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooking another Arklow schooner James Postlethwaite, similar to Cymric (schooner) and Mary B Mitchell. I would value any advice or suggestions Lugnad (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed - the date you gave in the hook was 1929, It should be 1921 Lugnad (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Costa Concordia

Would you please add a note regarding the Manual of Style to the invisible note asking editors not to add the weekday to Friday the 13th in this article. Your tone in this comment is encouraging another editor to abuse the invisible note system and dictatorially warn others off mentioning the size of the ship on the grounds that doing this has something to do with the Titanic. Without your explanation why the weekday should not be there it is hard to stop them from doing this. Britmax (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm just concerned that if abuse of the invisible note system (by anyone) becomes common and editors complain about it we could lose a useful editing tool which avoids the bad faith created by having misunderstandings corrected. Britmax (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian archived newspapers

G'day Mjroots. I am not sure whether you are aware of this project that the National Library of Australia is undertaking here and has lots of ship info. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Creteboon

Just noticed your template - ships lost on maiden voyage - and wonder if the Creteboon would qualify? It was when they were experimenting with concrete rather than steel ships. Creteboon was built with the intention of sinking her as a Blockship (to keep a harbour open). Unfortunately she hit a sandbank - and is still there. - Also : email sent - Lugnad (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Completed 1919 and traded until 1930s! Name was CRETEBOOM (pity National Maritime Museum of Ireland cannot spell!) Davidships (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Maiden Voyage

A query on your Maiden Voyage Template. I don't like adding a red link without cites. But can a cite be added to a template? I added Crescent City (of great interest to treasure seekers) and placed the cites on the talk page. I assume that it was valid to add this one, strictly speaking she foundered on the return leg of her first voyage. Lugnad (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


re:Empire Endurance

Hi Mjroots. This brings up an important, fundamental, point. Are newspaper stories from the Second World War-period reliable sources for details of events that happened back then? Having worked with such sources during my studies, and The Times specifically, I'd say no. Newspapers and such are not the best of sources today, and during the war years, with propaganda and censorship and all, it was worse. The Times wrote that SS Monte Rosa was sunk in an air attack, should we believe that? I know you've used The Times frequently, but you must surely agree that as a source for factual information (unlike its possible use as a source of how things were portrayed in the media back then) it leaves a lot to be desired. And when said source claims that Alster was a troopship (it wasn't) and that it carried among other things, toys, I'm deeply skeptical. She carried hay and coke to conceal her military cargo, why should she also have carried cigarettes and toys? What do you think? Manxruler (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. What filtered through from the military to the newspaper back in those days, and was allowed to be printed, is to be taken with a grain of salt. You're right in that it was even worse with the Axis side. They're not really sources for factual information, just a view of what the general audience was told. In my view, newspapers from those days shouldn't be trusted, unless reliable sources confirm the information. And if other sources confirm the info (not just repeating it), then why use old newspapers instead of the other sources? I think the general unreliability of newspapers in those days should prevent us from using them as sources for information. Let me give you some further examples. I wrote most of Battle of Hegra Fortress, and when I did that I found plenty of old newspaper articles on the action. I didn't use said articles as sources, other than to point out that Hegra Fortress was in the attention of the media back then. Had I used the newspaper articles I would have ended up claiming that Hegra Fortress was a large army base (it wasn't, it was a small border fort), manned by 100 or 150 men (really manned by 250) and which was bombarding Værnes airfield relentlessly (it was out of range and could not interfere with the airfield), that the Germans were on the retreat in Mid-Norway in late April 1940 (they were really advancing) and that Canadian troops fought in Norway in 1940 (no Canadian troops took part).
As for toys and cigarettes as cover for weapons transports, that would have been the first I've heard of it in the context of the invasion. The book source I've used says coke and hay was used as cover on Alster. Coke was used on several of the transports I've read and written about, the advantage being that it could be used to cover the entrances to the cargo holds and not be easily removed during inspections. Ships that were sailing in Norwegian waters were inspected, and an officer encountering "large amounts of toys" blocking the entrances to the cargo holds would ask questions and likely remove said toys to look inside the holds. The reliable book which I've used says nothing of toys, cigarettes, flour or sugar. Of course, these things might have been "liberated" by the Royal Navy at Skjelfjord, but if the newspaper article is correct, why no mention of guns, ammo, radio equipment, coke and hay? And would the RN folks take loads of toys? I completely get the cigarettes, and to some extent the flour and sugar (although those things would have really appreciated by the Norwegian administration), but to take large amounts of toys? Did the newspaper article also say that Alster was a troopship? There were no troops on board. Manxruler (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm mostly done. Thinking about adding a few more things, will probably do so later today. She suffered her first casualty under Allied control on 26 May, during a German air attack on Harstad. Just digging up some more detailed sources for that. I think that a GA nom is a good idea. Let's do that. Manxruler (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Didn't get to the library today. Will use what I have already, more to come. Manxruler (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Being annoyed about not getting to the library in time, I checked my personal library and discovered I've own plenty of books covering the ship. Work commencing now. Two issues: 1. Why is the page numbers missing from the The Empire Ships book? 2. Is Empire Endurance really the right title for this article? She was only called that c. 10 months and didn't really do much out of the ordinary, other than being sunk. Manxruler (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd presume the name she was sunk under would be the most commonly known one... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Mjroots: Could you perhaps find that book again, and add the page numbers? I think that's significant. If not, where should we ask to find the page numbers?
Mjroots and Bushranger: How do we check which is the most common name? I'm not sure sinking is the defining factor of a ship.
In Norwegian sources, which naturally are somewhat biased towards what happened to the ship while in Norway, Alster is the most common name, by a very good margin. She was launched as Alster, sailed for 13 years as the Alster, served as a Kriegsmarine supply ship as the Alster, was captured as the Alster, used as a repair and supply ship by the British in April 1940 as the Alster, used as a ore carrier by the British in May 1940 as the Alster, attacked by a British sub as the Alster. As the Empire Endurance she was a member of five convoys and was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat, while carrying tow motor launches. . Manxruler (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
There. That's all I've found on-line or I got in my personal library. I'll head over to the unbelievably tiny library where I live and have them order a couple of more books which I know have more info. How are you coming along with finding those page numbers? Manxruler (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I've ordered a book that I know has some really nice stuff on Alster. The library it can take up to two weeks, so I don't know when I'll have the time to use it, seeing as Easter holiday is coming up with all the travelling, sunshine and away-time from the internet that it involves. The GA review has started now, I think your input is needed with regards to some questions regarding horsepower and images and such. Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I too am hesitant with regards to fair use images. I don't have any in my books, but I did find this which seems to confirm that the picture you found is "our" Alster. I just remembered from looking at the GAN that I have info on her speed, from Miramar. Will fix that. Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A possible FAC sounds exciting. I do have the article watchlisted, and I'm planning a trip to a museum in Bodø to acquire a book with more info quite soon. Manxruler (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I've ordered a German book on German merchant ships during the Second World War. There is some technical information on Alster there, which I'm now adding. In this regard I have a question you might be able to answer. Regarding horsepower, how is that measured? Lloyd's says 1,000 nhp, while the book says 6,500 "horsepower" (Pferdestärken). Any idea why the vast difference? Manxruler (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. The problem is, the book does in no way at all specify which sort of horsepower it is. I think we might be stuck on that point. Do you know of any kind of hp that 4.5 times more than nhp? Manxruler (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
One could be a calculated figure, the other a figure which is actually measured. For example, in Britain until about 1949, cars were taxed according to their "horsepower" which was a calculated figure based on the number of cylinders and their bore (see RAC horsepower). This bore no relation to the actual power available at the tyre tread. Another possibility is that both figures are measured, but one figure is measured at the propeller, the other at the engine crankshaft. The latter would not take into account frictional losses in the drive train, or engine-driven auxiliaries such as generators and compressors. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mj. I have today received the loveliest German book in the mail. Plenty of Alster info. Turns out the "horsepower" is "PSi", what is that short for? Hopefully not Pferdstärke. Also, she was launched on 5 January 1928, so we need to change the redirect, could you do that, and delete the 1927 redirect? Manxruler (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Evidently PSi stands for indizierte Pferdestärken. What might that be? Manxruler (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. Does this do anything at all with regards to the 1,000/6,500 issue? Manxruler (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See Pferdestärke. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
So Pferdestärke isn't exactly the same thing as horsepower - the plot thickens. Manxruler (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

re:List of Empire ships (U–Z)

Re- your long pending request for archival references, I suggest I post a citation for my recent article on 'Cold War Whaling' in POLAR RECORD. That contains 20+ onward citations of items at the UK National Archives. I'm afraid that working through every Vikingen/Viking whale catcher on the page in order to supply direct citations would be too much for me. There is also a problem with adding citations to the page as a whole, because it covers so many vessels. Thanks, Nargoon (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Surviving ocean going ships

Have you seen the template

Hamish59 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Mjroots, but have you missed any of the ones in "National Historic Ships" that ought to be added to "Surviving ocean going ships". I note, for example, HMY Britannia Hamish59 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Ships

I'm starting to work on the list of ships in pt.wiki and have one question: On the 'list of ship commissionings' are added all the ships, included cargo or only military ships? Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks of Cornwall

Hello again, In the World War I section of the list some of the German submarines have names which have turned out to be the commanders of them. Having edited two I am not sure of the best way to make further changes and link to articles for the vessels where they exist.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice; I only occasionally contribute on Cornish shipwrecks topics but will check up on that list occasionally. Jowaninpensans is doing a good job in building up very informative lists for Cornwall and for Scilly. (An image for Torrey Canyon would be very useful if one could be found in public domain.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move SS Valbanera back to Valbanera

You moved "Valbanera" to SS Valbanera a while back without discussion. The ship was never known as "SS Valbanera". As a Spanish owned and registered ship, it was referred to in Spanish as "vapor Valbanera", but all of the English sources I've seen refer to it as "Valbanera" without any prefix. I therefore propose to more the article back to "Valbanera" in seven days. -- Donald Albury 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarensen

Miramar says nothing about a Sarensen or Sorensen. I can't find anything of that name anywhere in my sources. Manxruler (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Don't hesitate to ask for other ships too. I just ordered a book on the ships of Norddeutscher Lloyd from Germany, btw. Manxruler (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A problem

I was doing some editing on List of shipwrecks in May 1940 and came across a problem I couldn’t fix; can you suggest a remedy? The entry at 12 May for SS Ranheim has a link {{HMS|Zulu|F186}} which redlinks to HMS Zulu (F186). I can’t se why, as the other one {{HMS|Carlisle|D67|6}} is fine. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm looking at it in daylight, I can see the problem; idiot! I'm sorry to have bothered you with this.
Also, I've just seen/taken in the note at the top of your page; I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope things resolve themselves soon. I appreciate you being here, and wouldn't like to think you might have to give it up. Good luck! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, I'm the idiot who left the pipe out in the first place! I don't intend to disappear if I can help it. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Beat me to it! (servers of treacle!) Thanks! And I'm glad to hear it. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uganda in 1918

Hi Mj. I saw that you needed a dab for the Uganda which was sunk in 1918, and decided to look it up. Miramar has a Uganda which was torpedoed and sank in 1918, however this was on 8 March 1918. When I checked the reference you used for the entry I couldn't find any mention of a Uganda. Did I miss something important? Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's yet another Uganda which was sunk in 1918, on 27 May. Popular name for a ship, that. Manxruler (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think there's a typo in DANFS. The sentence "On 27 May 1918 while she was escorting a convoy from " is incomplete. After the October bit it continues: "Cythera searched for the submarine, and rescued the crew of the stricken ship, arriving safely at Gibraltar 28 May." I think it's a bit hard for a ship to be sunk on 3 October 1918, with the survivors reaching port on 28 May 1918. And there was a Uganda sunk on 27 May. Manxruler (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just about to have a late evening dinner, so I'm up for a while longer and I'll deal with this. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating a Uganda shipindex page makes good sense. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ames ships

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ames ships has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WW2 shipwreck lists

I unlinked Atlantic Ocean because it's so well known it doesn't need a link at all (see WP:OVERLINK - "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations"). Colonies Chris (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Either of those locations seems appropriate for a discussion. My feeing is that even though the ocean names are particularly relevant to shipwrecks, the links aren't useful. It's hard to imaging anyone clicking on such a link - and someone with an interest in shipwrecks isn't likely to be ignorant of the basic facts about the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

re:Bio-Bio.

Yep, Miramar has the details. I've added them to the list. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Empire Byron

See that manager of Empire Byron in infobox given as Haldin & Philipps Ltd. Lloyd's Register 1941/2 has J & C Harrison as does Hocking "Dictionary of Disasters at Sea...". Can you clarify source please? Perhaps Mitchell & Sawyer 1995 (my 1990 ed doesn't give managers)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidships (talkcontribs) 14:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks reply. Then its just an error. I think you've copied the manager from the previous entry (Empire Baxter) on your link. Incidentally, I cannot find any trace of a 1995 ed of "Empire Ships" - 1990 was the last I can find (perhaps there was a reprint?) - all the hundreds of Google hits appear to just refer to these WP pages (or are derived from them). Best wishes.Davidships (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ensigns vs jacks

Hi, can you offer any more assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#U.S. Navy "Don't Give up the Ship" Flag? In particular, I can't find where in WP:MILHIST it is recommended to use ensigns not jacks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Official Numbers

I'm a bit bothered by the standard entry "Official Numbers were a forerunner to IMO Numbers". To me it implies that they were part of a global system (which they were/are not) or that they have been superseded (which they have not). On the other hand it is of course correct chronologically. They serve different purposes and have different coverage - a ship may have one without the other for a wide variety of reasons. There is a Official number page which is starkly wrong and I will start an edit there - if it reaches a satisfactory state a link from "Official Number" in the Infoboxes is perhaps all that is needed. what do you think? Davidships (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks your reply - I'll see what I can do with the ON page. I remain puzzled why you refer to ONs always in the past - they remain a fundamental part of the legality of ship-owning/operating - it would be virtually impossible for any country to run a shipping register without such - though they vary greatly in form. Davidships (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that Official Numbers most definitely remain fundamental to the flag state's registration - and for the thousands of vessels that are not allocated IMO numbers that is all they have - but let me have a go at the ON article first, when all might become clearer.Davidships (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Miller

Hi - [13] what an inspired edit - thanks! Springnuts (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

TSS

Hello MJ. I posted this comment to your discussion with Andrerabbott, and also posted on the subject to the Ships project talk page. There were no turbine-powered merchant ships before the twentieth century, so the use of "TSS" is incorrect. And I cannot find any historic use of that prefix to mean twin-screw steamers. Are you aware of any?
"TS" and "TSS" seem to have been used at the dawn of the marine turbine age, for some short-sea trades around the British Isles. I am not aware of any usage other than that. Can you let me know if there was such usage?
Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

USS LSM(R)-190

G'day from Oz; I have just come across USS LSM(R)-190 in my hunt for instances of "air craft" instead of "aircraft". Ships aren't really my thing, but it seems to me that there is a heap of info in the article that should probably be better off somewhere else, or at least not in the article about the vessel itself. See what you think. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1926 wrecks

Hi Mjroots. That was a bit of a challenge. As it turns out, I can't find a Kwaian Maru No.2 at all, but I did find a Kwaiun Maru No.2 sinking on 15 August 1926. I've just added that ship to the list. Manxruler (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although I did have some problems figuring out where Tsaofeitien Light was. It's somewhere in the region of Dairen, which was occupied by the Japanese back then. Manxruler (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

General McPherson (ship)

Hi, can you add some categories to this? Hope you are feeling a bit better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1952

Hi Mjroots - I didn't unlink Piraeus. I only corrected the spelling - it's still linked. The changes to the spacing inside the template are not anything I do explicitly myself, they're part of AWB general fixes. If you think they shouldn't be made, I suggest you raise the matter at WT:AWB. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for giving me another source for the Quanza article--much obliged for the look. Khazar2 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect for HMY Alexandra

Hi Mj. Could you delete the redirect SS Prins Olav (1907)? There's no need for the year dab in the redirect, as there was only ever a single SS Prins Olav. I've already created a new redirect without the year dab. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion

Since Twinkle broke trying to add the notification to your page (you might want to archive some, it timed out due to the page size), letting you know about this discussion involving two categories you created. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I'll try to keep on top of it from now. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What ship?

Hello Mj, I hope this finds you well
I am writing with a bit of a problem (well, more of a conundrum really) and I thought of you!
I was watching the BBC documentary on the Tank Regiment in WWII, and the programme had a brief clip of (what I assume is) a British battleship, but I am stumped as to which one. Have you any idea?
The doc is on the BBC iplayer (here) and will be available until Sunday 20th January; the clip is at 08.54 to 08.57 ( a brief flypast, but a nice stern to stem shot).
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I'll try that. And thanks for looking, anyway. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat odd clean-up request at List of shipwrecks in 1944

Hi Mjroots. Great work (as usual) on the various shipwreck lists. I just dropped by List of shipwrecks in 1944, and ran across a clean-up request I didn't quite understand what was about. Apparently the list requires clean-up/improvement because it's "[r]idiculously inconvenient for obvious reasons" (helpful feedback, right?). Any idea what that might be about? The requester seems to be a regular. Manxruler (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call. There really wasn't much in the way of constructive input in that tag. By the way, excellent progress on the shipwreck lists. 18th century now, what could be next? Manxruler (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Ceylon

Category:Ships of Ceylon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

You have mail waiting here -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2013

Ping! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1802

I note that you have added Retreive to the List_of_shipwrecks_in_1802#December
I don't have access to your cited source:-
"Shipwrecks". Bury and Norwich Post, or Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambrigde Advertiser (Issue 1072). 12 January 1803.
Could you please check it really is Retreive and not a misspelling of Retrieve? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Plimsoll down again?

Hi Mjroots. I'm doing the last touches on a ship article I've been working on for a little while. In connection with that I've noticed that I'm unable to access Plimsoll Ship Data. Do you know if it's been down for some time, should we be worried? Manxruler (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to do without for a while then. Thanks. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Two things: 1. Plimsoll's back up. 2. What does "tons under deck" mean? Any idea? Manxruler (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks of Gibraltar

Thought you might like to add to this. Hope your illness isn't too serious!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Found some more on Alster/Empire Endurance

Hi Mjroots. I just found some more on SS Empire Endurance. Manxruler (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, how come? Manxruler (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Aha. I see. That makes perfect sense. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Astrid

Hi Mjroots. I've started an article today about The Astrid. You added it to List of shipwrecks in 2013 yesterday, saying that it was Dutch and that after running aground it broke up and sank. Would you mind adding references to either or both articles for those bits of info, please, as I've yet to track the refs for that info down? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ships year categories

Is the convention here that the correct category year is the year of launch? I had supposed that year of completion was more appropriate, rather than the time of a half-built ship. What should one do about ships whose launch dates are not known? Davidships (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking about dabs in particular, but those "ships of 1982" type categories. I'll get used to it, I suppose - but in all modern databases and registers that I know (LR, Equasis, Sea-web, national ship registers, other class registers, Miramar and the like) the year of build for the ship is the year of completion. Davidships (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Barracouta

Have you had any more luck tracking this one down? NtheP (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Astrid (brig)

Hi again - hope your computer problems are over! Could I convince you to have a look over Astrid (brig) to see if there's anything you can dig up about her that I haven't managed to find? Now that the ship's been salvaged, and its fate seems to have been set, I'd like to put the article up for GA status sometime soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Move of Grecian (1812)

Hi Mjroots. When you moved Grecian (1812) you should have moved her to HMS Grecian (1814), not HMS Grecian (1812). Grecian entered the Royal Navy in 1814, not 1812. By miss-naming her, you risk causing confusion. In this case, as there wasn't an earlier Grecian, the confusion is slight. However, in many cases the predecessor vessel may still have been active in the period between the launching of the successor and the year of the Royal Navy's acquisition. I would appreciate your reversing the move. If you feel that you must move her, please move her to HMS Grecian (1814). Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Togo/Svalbard

Hi Mjroots. Yes, you're right. That is an interesting ship. I should give that article a tweak or two. Good edits on your part, btw. I did a few edits on that ship myself 3+ years ago, it should be nice to have another look. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Template troubles

Hi Mjroots. I just created Template:Norwegian torpedo boats. For some reason I can't get to display correctly on the pages where I add it. None of the View, Discuss or Edit functions seem to work. When I push either of them I get "Template:Norwegian torpedo boatss", with an -s too many, for some reason. Do you have any idea how I've managed to mess the template up, and how to fix it? Manxruler (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like I fixed it here. Chris857 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. That was typical of the silly little mistakes that sometimes makes a mess of things. Well spotted. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The template name and raw name must be exactly the same. C&P is you friend here. Nice to see another stalker come out of the woodwork! Welcome to the club, Chris. Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep. I think I did copy-paste, but evidently my finger seems to have slipped slightly during the paste bit. Probably didn't help being seriously tired either. Ah, well, all's well now. Thanks all. Manxruler (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hadlow (ship)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadlow_%28ship%29#cite_ref-CM220324_24-0 forgive me if i seem a bit rusty on all this but the mystery of over 20 refs that are unreachable in current format - is there something i am missing - how are the refs verifiable ? lost with all hands - how verified (or not?) - anyways happy new year and all... satusuro 09:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

excellent - highly likely that libraries that i belong to can give me the access i need - thanks for your reply - cheers satusuro 11:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

SS Maasdam (1921)

Hi there, I saw that you formatted the ships for the Maasdam (disambiguation) page and I'm a bit confused why the new SS Maasdam (1921) article isn't showing up in "blue" on the page. I see that it's a cool template that will italize the vessel name, but not the year, so I didn't switch the format.

Maybe I'm the only one seeing red? Any insight would be much appreciated! You don't have to TB to my page, I'll watch this page for the short term.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's showing in blue for me and the link works. You've made a start on the article but the flags need to go per WP:MOSFLAG. Add {{Infobox ship begin}} and fill in details as appropriate. Further info on the ship may be found at Plimsoll Ship Data and Convoyweb (enter Maasdam in search box). Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, great! It's showing up blue for me now, too. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RNOV Shabab Oman

Hello Mjroots,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged RNOV Shabab Oman for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. BiH (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1829

I gather the ship "Perseverence" is spelled correctly and shouldn't be "Perseverance". If so, you should put a {{Not a typo}} or similar template on it. It stops the bot/AWB idiots like me and the Grammar Nazi's from "correcting" it. Bgwhite (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Pic for SS Alster

Hi Mjroots. Look, there's a photo of SS Alster now. Manxruler (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lingediep

I was having fun browsing on a marine tracker website and spotted Lingediep. I'm not sure if you have a ship project criteria for notability but it probably doesn't cut the mustard. It looked a fair sized cargo ship but is probably too generic for wikipedia. If so I'll db author it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you think so, I wasn't sure. I think wikipedia would be a much better resource if it contained more articles on things like cargo ships. Can you add a n empty box and I'll try to fill it in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

San Esteban (1554 shipwreck)

Hi, I was thinking of taking this to GA. I wanted prior approval though, do you think it's sufficient for GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: - It's certainly looking in pretty good shape. You might consider moving the inage of the carrack into the infobox. The date format of the first source isn't consistent within itself and the rest of the dates. I dislike the ISO 8601 date format, but it is allowed to be used. I've had a hand in two ship GAs - RMS Magdalena (1948) and SS Empire Endurance, the latter jointly with Manxruler. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too, I prefer 11 July 2014. But that's Aymatth2 for you :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: - what are your thoughts on a change of date style? Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the dates in the source descriptions so they are all 1995-05-05 format. I don't think they have to be consistent with the 5 May 1995 format dates in the body. To me the source list holds very compact, technical definitions, not meant to be read as normal text. I don't feel strongly though. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've given the article a read, and have a few comments. I'd keep the date styles of the body and the sources consistent, if I was writing this article. Further, "It was said that a priest in Mexico predicted that there would be a disaster before the ships set sail, but his warning was ignored." Who (at the time) said that? The claim is sort of without context is it is now. Manxruler (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: any idea?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording. The source just attributes the priest's warning to "oral tradition" and does not give the origin (place and time) of the tradition. I saw it in other sources. It seems sort-of relevant, even though it was probably invented after the fact. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. MJ, what happened to the infobox in MV Kuzma Minin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Fort Stikine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS Fort Stikine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS Fort Stikine

The article SS Fort Stikine you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:SS Fort Stikine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MS Bulk Jupiter

After all your help with MV Hoegh Osaka, I thoght you may be interested in this recent shipwreck article too. I just created it as a stub with an infobox (getting better with those) and any expansion is welcomed. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1815--recent style edits

When you have a chance could you look over this article to see if the location edits are up to WP standards? There are also some typos but those are minor so let me know if there should be changes and I'll take care of it. Hope you are feeling better. Get well soon! 66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping shipwrecks going!!!

I have archived 2007 - 2013 of the shipwrecks project talk page, although it is indeed entertaining reading... - lets hope for a better year for the project this year, HNY.. satusuro 12:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@SatuSuro: - I noticed, as I've got the WP watchlisted. Might be an idea to archive by year rather than the generic Archive 1, 2, etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
NP - will do I understand where you coming from on that one - sheesh - I think this talk page needs an archiving in parts too :) satusuro 12:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done Face-grin.svg Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


SS Eleni

Hi Mjroots! How are you doing? I read the article about the SS Eleni (1947), very interesting! Where did you get the information on this boat? Did you know that the Ragnild was a passenger ship and not cargo ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.20.174 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015

@82.170.20.174: See the references section of the SS Eleni (1947) article. That's where the info came from. Which SS Ragnhild did you mean? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Tug Diomedes

Thanks for your message. I didn't add to the shipwreck list precisely because I could not find a secondary source. The tug was positively identified when I raised a query on the Warsailors Forum, but I suppose the response there - and my Mk 1 Eyeball reading of the postcard (which I have in my tug collection) are OR. [14]

Quite possibly there is an entry in a volume of Gröner - I have asked Theo Dorgeist, who provided the info in the first place. What was that Belgian publisher thinking? Davidships (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nordstjernen - does it count as a "shipwreck"?

Hi Mjroots; I noticed that you added the "2013 shipwrecks" navbox to the article MS Nordstjernen. However, fortunately the grounding didn't have too grave consequences, Nordstjernen was repaired again (finished repairs in January 2014) and is now in fine shape, see this page at the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren). She was used for various events in 2014 and will cruise Svalbard this summer. So, I wonder... List of shipwrecks in 2013 where the navbox links to says "ships sunk, foundered, grounded, or otherwise lost during 2013", but Nordstjernen wasn't "lost". But I'm not sure what exactly counts as a "shipwreck" for the purpose of this list and the navbox. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Nordsternen was a grounding, which is why she is listed in the lower section of the navbox. Where a ship has an article and is involved in an incident, it is normal practice to include her in the relevant list of shipwrecks, which is what I used when creating the navbox. If you feel strongly that she should not be included in the navbox, feel free to remove from both article and navbox. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Well... at a closer look, maybe the issue is a more fundamental one? What irritated me is a navbox called "Shipwrecks in 2013" in an article about a, I'd say, non-wrecked ship. Only if one expands the navbox it becomes clear that this ship is listed under "Other incidents". That, of course, doesn't just affect Nordstjernen. So... maybe we could rename the navbox, what do you think? E.g. "Shipwrecks and other maritime incidents in 2013"? Or just "Maritime incidents in 2013" (including shipwrecks)? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: - Yes, we could retitle the navbox header. How does "Shipwrecks and maritime incidents in (year)" sound? Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me! Thanks! :-) Can I leave the retitling to you? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

Thoughts on this as an article, related to notability? Either regarding the ship, or the sinking? 54 dead, and BBC is a pretty reliable source. [15] Let me know what you think, thanks, as always! Juneau Mike (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start the article, if it gets moved, etc., we can deal with that later. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Article: Sinking of the Dalniy Vostok Juneau Mike (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Willow

I would value your advice on this: Talk:SS Irish Willow (1918)#Lucky is it trivial, or a source of DYKs? Lugnad (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie

Your recent spelling correction created a circular link even as I'm trying to untangle the spellings. When I moved the bare SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie>SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1906) that left the redirect to the bare, correct spelling. Today I began working SS Kronprincessin Cecilie (1905) and am in the process of correcting that to SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie (1905). I created an index page with the alternate, Anglicized spelling, with the intent to move that page to the correct spelling as index. Then I got the message I cannot do that because the old redirect exists. If you can, the big help would be to delete the bare SS Kronprinzessin Cecilie redirect so I can move the alternate spell list to the correct spell list. Palmeira (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Palmeira: - I've deleted the original title and its talk page, although I don't see why you couldn't edit the redirect page to convert it into a shipindex page. No matter, it's done now. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not just edit that page, respecting the big red warning to not do so—even though for such a page that seems meaningless. That was my fall back option. Thanks. Palmeira (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lists of maritime disasters

I've left the listings for the pre-1700's on the original 20th century page for the moment. I didn't think there were enough entries for a stand alone page at this time. I suppose that I could move them to the 18th century page which has already been slapped with a stub tag. What are your thoughts? Shinerunner (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I changed the original page from a redirect and added the pre-1700 content there following your example.Shinerunner (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sinking of the Oriental Star

Just began this article in the past hour. It is almost midnight here, and I am beat. I will continue this later, but thought it may interest you. Sinking of the Oriental StarJuneau Mike (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: - there's already an article at MV Dong Fang Zhi Xing! Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Saw that just a bit ago. That article mostly relates to the ship itself. I have renamed the sinking article. Thank you.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

HMS Cricket

Seems the R.N. doesn't consider Cricket a War Loss. U-boat list the damage on June 30 & the declaration, but she sank while being used as a target (bombing by RAF? artillery by Royal Army? or as an attack formation practice target w/o actual bombing?) in August 1944 or 1946-7 off Cyprus. Sinking off Cyprus is comfirmed. she was stripped of parts & equipment, but not scrapped as some reports say. http://www.proscubadiver.net/dive-sites-cyprus/cricket-wreck. Seems listing in August '44 would be more appropriate.

Scotia

Congratulations on opening a noce little article on the ship. I still have all the sources for the SNAE, but I'm not sure that this part of your article needs expanding. However, if there is a particular area on which you'd like a little more information, please let me know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: - I wasn't sure whether on not to go into the details of the ship's conversion, so I left them off without prejudice to inclusion. Any of her previous and subsequent history would be nice. Was the refit carried out in the Falklands (per my sources) or BA (per SNAE article)? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Almost forgot, UK port of registry. Photo shows it has four letters, but unable to make it out. Mjroots (talk)
I can't see any indication in either Speak's book, or Rudmose Brown's, that the ship was refitted in the Falklands. What particular source says this? Both my books describe in some detail the work done in Buenos Aires; the Falkland visits, it seems, were more for R & R. Like you, I can't read the registration port from the stern; the ship was converted for polar work at Troon, but that's five letters. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: It's ref#2 (online), but if there are better refs stating BA then use them. A telegram from BA was mentioned in The Times, which could indicate that the ship was there for refit. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "could indicate" – the refit in Buenos Aires is a fact, described in the books I mention: Speak, pp. 90–92, Rudmose Brown p. 98. The bibliographical details are as per the SNAE article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Re apparent 4-letter port of registry, Mercantile Navy List indicates only Glasgow (1902-1905) and Dundee (1905-1916). I wonder whether it is the expedition initials SNAE. Davidships (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

USS Sable (IX-81)

Sorry to see that you're having some health problems Mjroots. When you're up to it I was wondering if you could look at the USS Sable article. I've been expanding the content along with the references but I think another set of eyes on it might be helpful. Thanks. Shinerunner (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shinerunner: Thx for you message. I'n not too bad, good days and bad days. I sometimes have to stop editing for a while, timing is unpredictable. That's the main problem on Wiki.
Article needs more about Greater Buffalo. Plimsoll Ship Data has a fair bit on her. Don't forget her Code Letters will have changed in 1934. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There are currently problems with the website, 1930-34 files are returning as not found. Have notified them of this. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re SS Meriwether Lewis

Sources cited at SS Meriwether Lewis 67.101.6.98 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at talk:SS Meriwether Lewis, as you will be aware by now. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in the 1720s

Hi. Could you please review the June 9 entry under 1727? It appears that something is missing at "wrecked off the...". Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Category merger

I got a little lost on the WP:CfD page; I just merged the B-class destroyer into a renamed A- and B-class destroyer article (formerly A-class destroyer (1929)) and now need to merge their two categories. Can you walk me through the process, since I'm unsure if they qualify for speedy merging or not?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Not 100% sure, but looking at the A- and B-class destroyer article, there is a redlinked category which needs to be created and populated, then the relevant A and B class destroyer categories need to be redirected to the new category. BTW, the hatnote needs expanding to cover the earlier (1913) B-class destroyers.
It might pay to double check this. Not doing much on Wiki atm due to a family illness - a question of priorities mostly. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MV El Faro

Hi. Could you move the article to SS El Faro? It's a steamship, after all, and is referred as such on the shipping company's website. Thank you. Tupsumato (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tupsumato: -  Done - that'll teach me not to read the bleddy article first! Must have been one of the last steamships in commercial service. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SS Berne

Did you mean the SS Beme?
Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wiki-psyc: - yes, but it is SS Beme (1945), not SS Beme (1904). I've now fixed this. Mjroots (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arpenteur

Thanks for you kind words, infobox is added now. This is my first effort at an article on a ship and I have no expertise in the area. If you notice anything that is incorrect, or have any advice on how to improve, could you please let me know? I want to write a couple more articles on wrecks in my local area. Best Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in February 1945

hello Mjroots, i've noticed, that in the List of shipwrecks in February 1945 there are 3 landing crafts (Siebelgefäß) listed to be sunk on 6 February 1945. But opposed to this info, another source says they were all lost on 6 February 1943, see here http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=62 for IO 16, http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=70 for IO 30 and http://www.historisches-marinearchiv.de/projekte/landungsfahrzeuge/infanterietransporter/ausgabe.php?where_value=71 for IO 31. cheers --Agentjoerg (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Agentjoerg: I've taken a look, and they are referenced to Navypedia. Not a site I am familiar with. By all means remove them and add them to the February 1943 list with the references above which do meet WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Agentjoerg: Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I mess up the reply to template, sou you won't have been notified.

ok, I'll do that. thanks for the quick response. --Agentjoerg (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

British Ensigns

Hi mjroots, The use of white and red ensigns on pre-1864 vessels to distinguish between naval and civilian vessels is a useful anachronism. Per British Ensign, post-1864 the Blue Ensign undefaced today is worn by masters of vessels in possession of a warrant issued by the Director of Naval Reserves, and by the members of certain yacht clubs. Pre-1864 the white, red, and blue ensigns designated different British naval fleets. However, as naval vessels would transfer between fleets, trying to keep track of which ensign HMS Pinafore flew when would be pedantic and uselessly laborious. I am not aware that any of Hadlow's masters was a naval officer. There were cases where the Admiralty would appoint a naval officer to be captain of a civilian ship. The hired armed vessels represent one case. I recall that on certain occasions local naval commanders would put a naval officer in command of a civilian transport hired to support a military expedition. In these cases I suspect that the vessels might have flown the Union Jack while under military command. Otherwise, like all merchant vessels, they would have flown the red ensign. Or at least that is my understanding. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miramar

Thought you would have signed up for this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks, but I don't really need it. Not creating many ship articles atm as working on lists of shipwrecks. Know who to ask if I need to. Let someone more active in that area have the access. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian indenture ships to Fiji

Seems to be a good result with SS Santhia. I am a bit concerned about the referencing for the Fiji voyage table, and was surprised to find it now cited to George Blake's book on BI - I don't have the book (and Google's snippets are not very extensive) but I had assumed that the data was taken from the unreferenced source of the table in Indian indenture ships to Fiji, with the slightly strange addition of the "deaths" column - so far as I can see none of the individual ship pages have a source for their part of the table. This table doesn't cover just BI, so I am puzzled as to why other company's data would be covered by Blake. The full table was added by in IP, and FWIW I have asked on User talk:62.129.121.63. Where can we go from here? Davidships (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidships: Hmmm, I assumed that it came from the book, as it didn't come from any of the other sources. No objection to the book being moved to a further reading section and the table being tagged as needing a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SS Indigirka

You have a new talk page message.

I noticed you had reverted this editor and thought I should let you know that they have made numerous edits like this to various ship and milhist article infoboxes. I've had to revert literally dozens and dozens, where they did test edits with markup, added unsourced info, or tried to tailor or add non-existent infobox parameters. I've tried communicating with this user repeatedly; I've left messages, a welcome template, multiple notifications and warnings, but they refuse to engage on any talk page and just continually blank their user page. I wouldn't call it vandalism as I believe they're trying to help, but they create just as much work for others as they contribute. If you could help out here that would appreciated. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, this editor is still at it, making multiple edits to ship infoboxes, many of which have to be corrected. (for example; his edit, and your correction) If you could help keep an eye on his contribs, it would be appreciated. They are almost exclusively to ship article infoboxes. Perhaps if you could post a word of advice on his talk page, it might help? I've tried ad nauseum, but any comments, notices or warnings that anyone adds to his talk page, are blanked without a response, so it's been impossible to engage this editor in any constructive dialogue (this might have something to do with it, but I'm not sure). There is potential here for this editor though, after many requests, he has finally taken to adding edit summaries, so there is some responsiveness there. Anyways, if you think you can help, that would be great. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

German submarine U-1102

This article was categorized under Maritime incidents in 1945. The sub was scuttled, to me that doesn't seem an incident. The category U-boats scuttled in 1945 would seem appropriate but the category page says it is for U-boats only scuttled in May 1945. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. Can you please give me some input? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - a scuttling qualifies as a maritime incident. The correct category is Category:Maritime incidents in December 1945, which I have added to the article. As for the Category:U-boats scuttled in 1945, it may need either renaming or its scope changing. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

SS Hopestar

Hello, You recently helped with the article SS Hopestar and I would like to ask your help again. I would like to put the crew list on the page. I got the info independantly from The Newcastle Chronicle but also from FIND MY PAST. i Have 2 jpegs from FMP and asked them if I could use them. Here is their reply;

Dear Edward

Thank you for your email.

As this would be classed as 'educational/personal' purposes, there shouldn't be any issues with reposting the information, given that you provide a correct citation to the page at FMP.

We do have to approve uses of records in for-retail products, but given the nature of Wikipedia's work, you can amend the article accordingly.

I hope this resolves your query.

With kind regards,


Brett Murray Findmypast Support Team

Did you know? The 1939 Register is now included within both the 12 month Britain and World subscriptions, allowing unlimited access to 30.5 million people’s records.

If you would prefer to speak with our Customer Support team, please call us on +44 (0) 20 3326 6300 between 9am and 5.30pm (GMT) Monday to Friday


My problem is I dont know how to prove to the censors that I have permission to repost. Can you help nplease. Thanx Sherlockh22 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Shipwreck templates

I got your note about the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwreck templates I eventually will get to. (I have done 1962-1968 and plan to work backward toward 1945 from 1962 over the next few days, and I also still have to go back to 1989-2016 to add shipwrecks to those templates per your earlier request, but I eventually will get to 1945 and earlier years.) I had already thought about 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 needing to go month-to-month, but I had not thought about how to handle "unknown date" shipwreck and incidents. Would you suggest one kind of annual template for them and separate monthly templates for the rest? Or would a single template that lets a user go to each month and to the unknown-date ships somehow be better? (If the latter, I am pondering how to design it and would welcome any suggestions you might have.) Meanwhile, I′ll keep thinking about it. Mdnavman (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)mdnavman

I got your suggested navbox for 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 shipwrecks. I think it is excellent. For maximum ease of navigation, I'd like to allow users to be able to jump from year to year as well as from month to month whether they are in an article that falls under the monthly or annual navboxes. (One-stop shopping, if you will.) I think your suggested format would serve that purpose for articles requiring access either to the monthly or annual boxes, maybe with just a modification or two depending on which type the article in question falls under. I'll mull that over to see if I am missing anything. Meanwhile, of course your further comments are welcome. Mdnavman (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)mdnavman
@Mdnavman: - Not sure that will be necessary. Full navigation is already achieved by the shipwreck lists for WWI and WWII. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Godd morning Dear Sir,

I have to inform you that the sources of this article are:

  • The story Christened, that is realy can be used as reliable source and very interesting the conditions in the engine room of the ship and customs of the seman on this shep described in the story.
  • Internet talking between Russian seamen and they added one another to collect as possible information about this ship. I sure that seamen's information also reliable du to they have not sence to fib as the Soviet Union and RIssian official sources able to fib to describe the situation as the Goverment needs.

As example I have to inform you that the Soviet Union ship Bratstvo collided the Soviet Union submarine in 1980s and in all official sources were mentioned that that was fire in engine room as the sea water flooded the engine room. This information was a secret for long time and due to seamen Internet discussion the situation was described really. It is means that the seamen of that ship, including the captain, described that situation more really that the Soviet and Russian military sources and press. I intend to write the article about it also. The ship Bratstvo is the Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships (it is my article) and I already wrote some articles about some ships of this class. My English is not exelent and I will glad if you will read and correct my mistakes in this articles also.

Can be we will able to make good team if you will make article about any ship that was used by the Soviet Union also and I wil try to search information about the ship to translate it from Russian language. As you sea the article SS Heinrich Arp became more interesting. Also my article SS Karaganda includce Russian and US sources and very interesting for US readers - you may correct mistakes in this article also

Can be You have interest to any ship now and I can assit you to collect and translate information from the Soviet Union and Russian sources. Let me know.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Remain to describe last years of this ship. And the sources, internet talking between seamen, are in doubt regarding the las Shipping Company of the ship Лиза Чайкина. And, any way I will try to describe it like the situation is not clear and seems like this. You will sea and I needs the time only to investigate it myself also. Грищук ЮН (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Heinrich Arp

Good evening, Like I completed to add the article. Can be I will add ship's patticulars also.

This ship was mentioned in two books of Soviet writers. I described it. From the 1953 the job of the ship is not clear - in 1953 she started to carry out prisoners and can be demobilazed militaries. Later she was not mentioned in the Far East Shipping Company and still we have not information in which company she was from 1953. Can be the ship was used for the prisoners and other military aims from 1953 to 1963 due to was small (already was bigger ships) and in bad condition for the planing of the voyages.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Soviet merchant ship histories

Good morning and Many thank Dear Sir!

As You see all seamen talking wia Interned confirmed by the mentiond by other more really sourses which I searched also. And is better if the readers will understand that Sovier press, books often distort reality to bring all information to the Sovit norms. I still translating the article SS Bratstvo (1963) and this article will looking more really due to ship's captain and crew information via Internet (forusm, captains letter) as during Soviet Union period was only military version do not show that the Soviet military guilty. Also I will ajust some previous my article to show difference in Soviet press and books information and thir discrepancy. It will be article SS Leninsky Komsomol when I will write new article SS Metallurg Baykov due to the construction of the ship Metallurg Baykov had to be completed and handed over before New Year celebration to compleat Shipyard yearly plan in 100%. But due to previous ship Lenisky Komsomol had plenty defficioncies the ship Metallurg Baykov construction was completed after New Year. And in the same book (book about Kherson shipyard) mentioned that the ship Lenisky Komsomol had not defficiencies. Often the Soviet Shipping Companies had to take any ship from Soviet shipyard to show good yearly shipyard plan and the shipyard had to assit the shipping company if futire with this ship: after firts year in operations or earlier the ship visited shipyard again to close defficiencies if it was possible.

I try to write correct information only. If any information in doubt I write it with remarks: like it is position of any person, or it is in doubt, or legend, e.t.c. But any legend is really information partly or fully.

The same time I am traning my English also. It is another side why I have interest to write articles in English Wikipedia.

If you see my mistakes (wrong translated phrazes, missed or wrong characters in the words, e.t.c.) correct please.

And the article SS Liza Chaikina is looking better now. I tried to describe all searched by me information and what was in doubt I described also correctly - like no any good information and only some sources say opposit information. Can be anybody in future will found out the truth.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Грищук ЮН: - please would you comment at WT:SHIPS. I will copy this over there. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin

Good afternoon Dear Sir, Can be can give advise to me what to do in this situation. One time (about one month ago) I wrote the text in the article SS Nezhin where was mentioned that the ship had other name before 1974 due (two attached photo in this article confirm this). The text about othe ship's name on English was deleted. Now I found out confirmations and proved this but somebody (one file directly Russian man and I and Ukranian) wants to delete both files.

I already sent messeges to Russian deleter, to see below:

 The photo maden by me due to my search via Internet. It is Internet search to confirm that ship's name and city name НЕЖИН was written in another manner as Nezshin and not as Nezhin today. I tried to prove it before and only by this search it possible and I afraid that later will not possible to confirm that same. It why this photo placed in article SS Nezhin as if later this search will not possible to do can be will not possible to prove that the ships with Russian name НЕЖИН (built in XIX century) was named on NEZSHIN on English. And Soviet ship НЕЖИН (built in 1954) had nema NEGIN or NEZSHIN before 1974. It delete this confirmation - somebody will delete again the part of text in article SS Nezhin due to absent confirmation. One time I already wrote the same text about and the text was deleted due to confirmation absent. Now the confirmation present, but declared to be deleted. What to do??? How to confirm???

I already described more information in File description part. Can the photo of my Internet search is not good vissible but in case it will be deleted again will not possible to prove that the ship had other English name before 1974. She had name NEGIN before 1974.

Can be You abvise will assist me and my article SS Nezhin.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Nezhin

Here is aiusted by me description o the other FILE:Protocol....

Due to You have interest to the article about the ships here is good information and can be will assit You to search the samen Soviet ship which has some names due to Protocol dated 1974. It is not secret. Now everybody know this extraction of Protocol as everybody in Russia whe receive foreign passport has in this pasport English na,e also and everybody know which rules used for this translation. It is not secret.

Extractions from the Protocol of Third Soviet-American Session regarding maritime shipping dated first part of 1974, the crew members names in English crew lists and ship's names had to be ajusted on English before 1st of June 1974 as per agreement. The copy of this extraction was given on each Soviet ship to ajust properly ship's name and crew full names in Crew List on English. It is not full text of Protocol.

It is confirm that some Soviet ships had other English name before 1974 what I want to say in the article SS Nezhin. It can assist to search information for other articles about the Soviet ships. As example can be SS Leninsky Komsomol due to this ship possible to search by three names.

Also before 1974 Russian family names and names was written not like today due to was not this Protocol yet.

For example:

  • Russian name Evgeny and after 1974 Yevgeniy.
  • Name Alexandr and after 1974 Aleksandr.
  • Ship's name Leninsky Komsomol and after 1974 sometimes Leninskiy Komsomol. And new ship with the same name was built in 1980s has exactly name Leninskiy Komsomol.
  • Ship's name Negin and after 1974 Nezhin.
  • The ship Toyvo Antikaynen received name in honor of fin kommunist Toivo Antikainen and now You understand why the ship/s name and person's name have differences.

On my opinion it will assist in information search for articles.

If you will found out this extraction on English can better.

BRGDS Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SS Klio (1924)

Good afternoon, I wrote more information about this ship. This is information from Rusian sources.

Also some photos adreses mentioned. Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Alaska cruise ship accident

I know these issues interest you. While I don't believe the incident is notable enough for its own article, the video of the accident is pretty dramatic as you will see. I have added the incident to the Current Events portal, and made a small entry on the Celebrity Infinity page. See the news article and video here: [16] Juneau Mike (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RMS St Helena (1989)

There was an item on BBC Breakfast today, just before 09:00, about RMS St Helena (1989), which they said is the last ship of RMS status, and will soon lose that honour. But our article says "one of only four ships in the world still carrying the status of Royal Mail Ship" - which were the other three, when did they lose the RMS status? Some updates needed, I think; but I have no sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't know which the other three are off the top of my head. However, just because the BBC said it was the last does not necessarily mean that it is the last. I've asked for help over at the Ships Nostalgia Forum. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

USS Jeannette

Not according to the article. I have not gone back to sources on this, but the article is not the only place I have seen the RN service. It's been a while. If I have it wrong the article needs serious revision.Dankarl (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a hard time finding anything really authoritative online but DANFS (Hazegrey) confirms built as a RN gunboat.Dankarl (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Only if by merchant ship you mean "non-governmentally owned". We do not generally classify either yachts or research vessels as merchant ships.Dankarl (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1819

March 3rd is messed up. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: - Thanks, it was caused by a malformed wikilink. Would have fixed it quicker but was butlering the cats. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorizatiion issue

Discussion moved to WT:SHIPWRECK
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello.

Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category".

If what you say is true, then I guess several shipwreck articles need an update, and a few redirects need to be created.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - I don't understand, Category:Maritime incidents in 1628 is not a redirect. Nearly all other vessels involved in shipwrecks / maritime incidents are suitably categorized by year (or month + year for WWI and WWII). That's why I undid your edit. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it is not the category that is a redirect. You may have read the guideline a little too quickly. It's about how we avoid placing articles in incompatible categories by creating appropriate redirects. See for instance the sinking of the RMS Titanic article, which is in the "maritime incidents in 1912" category. The article about the ship itself is in "ship-compatible" categories. The article about the sinking is not in ship categories, and the ship article is not in incident categories, just as it should be (I just removed the incident category from the ship article; it was both a miscategorization and a duplication).
Per Wikipedia:Categorization, categories are either set categories or topic categories. Set categories are always in plural. In order to belong in a set category, articles must fit into the category; it must be an instance of what the category describes. A ship is not an incident, thus it does not belong in set categories about incidents. In this case, both the ship and its sinking are notable, and both have articles, and that's all good and well. In the case of Vasa, there is only an article on the ship. While the sinking of Vasa may also be notable, there is still no article. We can't just arbitrarily place the ship in an incident category, just because there is no article on its sinking.
Similarly, editors sometimes mistakenly place articles on people in categories on scandals (following news reports). (I would call that "categorization by association".) People are not scandals, and thus this is wrong. If the scandal isn't notable enough to have an own article, place a suitably named redirect (to the involved person) in the appropriate categories – categories in which readers can be expected to search for the scandal.
For another example, please read the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category", especially on the 24 Heures French-language version of the 24 Hours newspaper. The former can't obviously be placed in English-language newspapers categories, and the latter can't obviously not be placed in French-language newspaper categories.
Hope this wasn't TLDR.
Cheers.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: I think I've got it now. Because there is a redirect (Sinking of the Vasa), you're saying that the ship shouldn't be categorized in the Maritime incidents category?
Unlike the Titanic example you gave, there is little likelihood of an article on the sinking of the Vasa being created. IMHO, the redirect should be deleted, leaving the ship in the correct category, per many other ship articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You almost got it. It's not because there is a redirect; it's because a ship is not an incident. The sinking of a ship is an incident. The redirect was recently created by me, as a place-holder if you will, since Vasa is not an incident, and since it's needed in the "Maritime incidents in 1628" category. 1628 is in Sweden kind of like what 1066 is in England, I guess, and since both the ship and its sinking are notable, the 1628 category is needed.
I agree, there's little likelihood that an article on the sinking of Vasa will be created (but you never know). That's not the question at hand however. There's also little likelihood that the 24 Heures article will be created, and it's still a valid redirect, even referred to in the guidelines. The question is that the Vasa is miscategorized as an incident, while it was a ship.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unlike me, you don't seem to have a guideline that supports your views. Or do you? If, as you say, this type of categorization is widespread, then I think we need to start a discussion somewhere. Do you have a suggestion?
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: I think this does need wider discussion than just us two. I will copy the above over to WT:SHIPWRECK and post a notice at WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST as the shipwrecks project isn't as active as it should be. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Bristol Packet (1801 ship)

Thanks for your edits & comment about Bristol Packet (1801 ship) I have added a (historic England) ref for the length, but I can't find where I got the figure for the width.— Rod talk 08:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

EIC ships

Hi Mjroots, I am aware of the site you mentioned, but there is nothing in it that isn't in either Hackman's (2001) book on the EIC ships, or in the National Archives, which provides part of the base for both the website and Hackman. Furthermore, I have often found them incomplete, or even wrong, which compromises info based on them. As for the EIC flags, I use them generally, but there was a point in the early 19th century when the EIC switched to the regular British ensign. At one point I had the year, but I've mislaid the reference. I now generally use 1814 as the cut-off for switching because that was the year the EIC lost its monopoly on the east of Cape of Good Hope trade. This gives rise to an additional issue: a vessel may be sailing east of the Cape of Good Hope, but without being a vessel belonging to the EIC. It might be under contract (an "extra ship", even for as many as six voyages), or after 1814, licensed, or under a special exemption. Thus convict transports to Australia might backhaul for the EIC, or whalers go into the South Pacific, or in one case, be carrying missionaries to the South Pacific, and although in the first and third of these categories, their logbooks may be in the National Archives in the EIC section, they were not EIC ships. (And sometimes EIC ships became licensed ships.) So often what flag to feature is a bit of a judgement call based on my best guess as to what was going on at the time. I would welcome any info that you might have on when the changeover in flags occurred, or anything that in particular cases would provide more accurate info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: IMHO, contemporary sources are best. Do you have access to The Times online? That's the sort of thing they would have covered. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mjroots, Sorry, am not following you. As far as the website you recommended is concerned, it is using the same sources I use, except that I update the info with other info that is contemporary to the period, or contemporary in the sense of recent, especially when it is reflects some historian's detailed research. Both contemporaries have their weaknesses; I tend to go with the preponderance of the evidence. If you mean with respect to the flag issue, I don't have access to The Times. There may have been an announcement, but I am not aware of it. One source I have started to think about is paintings. A painter painting an EIC ship in 1820, for instance, will paint the then relevant flag. That may solve the switch-over date, but it still doesn't solve the problem of what flag a non-EIC ship is flying. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: - I meant that The Times would likely have covered the EIC losing its monopoly. I get my access to the online archive through my library's website. As you appear to be in the United States, it is a possibility that you could get access that way. Otherwise, it is a question of paying for access directly through The Times. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Re HMS Pearl (1762)

Hi Mjroots, thought you might be able to give me some advice as an admin who has an interest in the subject matter. I am working on HMS Pearl (1762) in my user space. I am not quite ready to move the article yet but the move will be complicated by a redirect which is currently occupying the title page. I could simply cut and paste the finished article over the redirect but I assume this will result in loss of the edit history (whether that matters or not, I don't know) or I could request the current page is deleted and then move my article to the user space. Is there any guidance on this or do you have an opinion on what's best? As I said, it is still a work in progress so doesn't need moving yet but would like to know in advance. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: As you're the only editor who has edited the proto-article all you need to do is edit the redirect by cutting and pasting the proto-article in. Use an edit summary of "convert to article" or similar. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ykraps: Should the situation change, ping me when you are ready to move the proto-article and I'll G6 the redirect for you. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
By which you mean, if others edit the proto-article? Incidentally, have I posted this at the right place? I've just noticed at the top of the page where it says, "If your post is an Admin-related matter..."--Ykraps (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ykraps - yes, and don't worry about it. This is not an admin matter as such, but the post could have gone in the Ships section. I'm almost finished with a major project then this talk page will be sorted out and archived. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks. I'm not sure what is and isn't an admin thing as I don't seem to get involved with too many. I consider that a good thing. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Speedwell (ship)

There's a discussion at Talk:Speedwell (ship) that might interest you Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

SS Brita (1908) question

I've left a question on the talkpage of SS Brita (1908), which you created regarding the ship's build date.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability of ships

Hi Mjroots, I noticed your recent great work on this list, and I see that you wikilinked all of the ships. I recently wrote a couple of articles about ships, including a ship from this list, and I'm wondering what's the standard view on notability of ships? (Couldn't find anything in the rules.) For example, if the following is available from reliable sources, is the ship notable?

  1. Launch date, ship's maker.
  2. Ship's fate
  3. Successive owners
  4. Successive captains
  5. Ship's type
  6. Tonnage, Length, Beam

Was an individual 19th century ship ever determined to be not notable? Thanks, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@凰兰时罗: Generally, ships over 100 tons (undefined) / 100 ft long should be notable. If you have all the info you state above from reliable sources, then you should be able to write a decent enough article which will demonstrate the notability of the ship. I'd say that most ships from the mid-C19th are going to be notable enough for an article. For older vessels, it's very much a case-by-case basis. The stranger the name, the easier it will be to find souces and demonstrate notability. Naval vessels are easier than merchant vessels. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! That's good to know. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Lairdsfield

Hello. Do you think that this adds too many words? I see that while many entries are fairly short, a few have a bit more detail. I thought this was a candidate (the BOT's cause of the accident) for adding a touch more, or maybe the fact that she sank very quickly about ten minutes after disembarking the pilots. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - I'd lose the "and stowed" bit. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done - Done it, thanks - reads much better. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35)

Why did you add a Navbox for the 2017 incident but not for the 2010 and 2012? Either none or all makes more sense. Pennsy22 (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pennsy22: navboxes and cats added. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ACX Crystal

Thanks MJR for your message, but cannot see where I have left out a ref. Davidships (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. Must have lost during busy time with multiple edit conflicts - restored it now as still needed for a couple of details in that sentence.
Incidentally, do you think that the chart is legit? Firstly it is clearly from MarineTraffic.com, yet claimed as "own work"; secondly it looks like a straight lift from the attributed version used by the BBC here. A version produced independently later would be different as the same historic track would be overlaid on the map showing current ships at that time. Davidships (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

On a different aspect, I am surprised that you moved the page from ACX Crystal to MV ACX Crystal "Per naming convention for ship articles". WP:SHIPNAME doesn't say that at all. "An article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name". A Google News search for "mv acx crystal" produced just one RS in English - apart from that, virtually all of the tens of thousands use the unadorned name. Davidships (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

Hello. I'm sure you've noticed me filling in parentheses and removing stray brackets on the lists for 1836-41 (AWB has that tendency to only tell me of the first instance parentheses are unbalanced rather than all cases), but I've also noticed they're becoming awfully long (maybe alongside many other lists of shipwrecks, but I only focused on these six, specifically). Would it be possible to reduce the size of these articles by instead transcluding the larger tables as separate templates or editing the descriptions for brevity? I don't see a reasonable method of splitting them anyway. Thanks for any other suggestions of reduction. Regards, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Yes, I had noticed you fixing brackets and wikilinks, thank you for that. Yes, the lists are long, (five of the seven longest pages are shipwreck lists). They could be split by month, as has been done for the lists covering 1914-18 and 1939-45. However, I don't see a need to split them. Having them as complete years makes it much easier to edit them - if they were split, it would mean constantly shifting between thirteen different articles per year, thus considerably slowing down progress. It's currently taking me about 3-4 weeks per list to work through the sources and add the info. The issue was also discussed recently on Jimbo's talk page, where another editor (JFG) also agreed that there was no need to split. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.