Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ships (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Schooner Linden.jpg
USS Goldsborough (DDG-20) at anchor off Bahrain on 1 December 1986 (6475450).jpg
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Sinking of SS Princess Alice[edit]

This article is at WP:FAC.[1] There has been some conflation of tonnage with displacement, and it would be helpful for someone with access to Miramar could check the metrics against the cited sources. This BBC article may have made the same error where it states that the passenger vessel "weighed less than a third of the 890-ton collier", but that assertion has now been removed from the article. Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm told by SchroCat that Lyndaship has checked Miramar, so it should be OK. Kablammo (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I did. Its on my talk page Lyndaship (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A different point: Can lovers of ship prefixes please explain what this means, that starts the article: "SS Princess Alice, formerly PS Bute"? Davidships (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Per ship prefix, SS means steamship (generally taken to mean a screw propelled ship, but applying the term to a paddle steamer (PS) is technically not wrong). The ship should be correctly described as PS Princess Alice. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Ship prefix is at best ambiguous. Para 1: "“SS” - steam-ship" (unreferenced); table: "SS - Single-screw Steamship (also used as generic term for any steam-powered ship)" and is specifically referenced to [2] which has "SS - Steamship (single screw)". Few, if any, of the books cited in the article use any prefixes. Davidships (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Stubs vs no article[edit]

Hello all, new user to the Wikiproject here. Many potential pages, such as specific ships on a list such as list of hospitals and hospital ships of the Royal Navy have no article whatsoever. Is it better to make a page for these, with the little information that is available, such as on HMHS Liberty, or to leave the ship without a page? I'm interested to hear your input, as I've been going through a few of these pages and making them, just as stub entries with usually only one or two sources (all I can find online). SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that stubs are fine; I've built many myself with the goal of coming back to them at some point and expanding them whenever I've got the time and energy to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
As you say they are catered for on the list, and on disambiguation pages. Better for someone to create an article and follow through to its completion. Creating the article gives a sense of ownership, sufficient to invest time. Stubs don't do that. If you've found two references, then why not go the extra yard and complete the article. We have plenty of half researched articles, lying around already. Lists provide enough presence for non notable ships anyway. Broichmore (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Your example HMHS Liberty has already been written up as SY Liberty. So a stub should not have been created, just a redirect at the most. Broichmore (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I should add. If the ship turns out to be significant in some way, then making a DYK out of it gets considerably more difficult, if already hanging around as a stub. Broichmore (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


So I came across USS Gypsy (SP-55), and as far as I'm aware, if a vessel hasn't actually been commissioned, it's not a "USS" anything. Before I go and remove the prefix, however, I figured I should ask here if anyone has a different understanding. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree.  Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Concur. Not a "USS". - wolf 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What title should it be? I'd think it would be United States patrol boat Gypsy based on the naming conventions (and it might be worthwhile to add a line on rare exceptions like this one to the conventions - I know this isn't the only case, as I recall Palmiera mentioning the motley array of vessels in the Philippines in the interwar period that weren't actually commissioned but still get the prefix applied incorrectly - if anyone's interested, that old thread is here). Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Or just Gypsy (SP-55), if the number wasn't was reassigned. They usually aren't. - wolf 00:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No suggestion in DANFS or Navsource of reuse of SP-55; I suppose that the USN could quite happily plough on through the numbers for SP- and ID- with no constraints, especially as there was lots of scope for confusion with acquisition of vessels of the same name. As it happens, this is an example where there was another Gypsy, allocated SP-92, though this one didn't even get as far as being prepared for USN service. However, Naval History and Heritage Command muddies the common understanding on "USS" with this photo [3]. Davidships (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Another consideration is commonname (not a particularly good policy, but were stuck with it), she was originally named "Gypsy" when she was built as a private boat five years earlier. That is the only name she was known by. Perhaps the page should just be titled Gypsy (motor boat)...?

She wasn't commissioned, and SP-55 just happened to be the next available number when she was acquired. But given she was never actually used by the navy, and doesn't seem to have much notability as private boat, is this even an article worth keeping? It's not as if she was a capital ship. This article is a stub, of a basically a non-notable boat, that will never be more than it is now. I'm not pushing for deletion, just throwing that out there. I'm good with either Gypsy (SP-55) or Gyspy (motorboat). Cheers - wolf 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point - there's probably a fairly strong argument to be made that the article out to just be deleted (or redirected to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy). Anybody else have particularly strong feelings? Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
My take on WP:COMMONNAME is a little different - the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) - in the sources that we have, Gypsy (SP-55) best fits that definition and is reasonably consistent with the five policy criteria. As for whether the article should stay, I am quite firmly for retention - it may be a modest little story but this is a named vessel that was acquired by the USN and given an ID, then unexpectedly destroyed; it is properly referenced and can be even better illustrated, and there remains the possibility of a little further expansion. A redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy would be effectively a deletion as it is what it says it is, just a useful checklist and index to articles - and neither is Section patrol a useful destination for a redirect and the current content. Davidships (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that a couple of lines in DANFS is enough to meet WP:GNG - it's not exactly independent of the subject, right? I had a look in Conway's and it's not there (unsurprisingly). I searched Google Books, and apart from DANFS, I found a list in Proceedings that includes it and a similar table in The New Navy, 1883-1922. All together, they hardly meet the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unless someone can come up with a significant source (and given the obscurity of the vessel, I doubt such a thing exists) we'll probably head to AfD.
As for the list, it probably ought to be split up and developed along the lines of List of battlecruisers of the United States, List of protected cruisers of Italy, etc. Such a list would be an ideal place for the little information there is on the vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with that at the conceptual level, but I cannot see how it could be anywhere near practical, nor an improvement. Comparing it with those "list of" articles on capital ships is apples and oranges - they provide overviews of the subject where the ships, and indeed their classes, have their individual articles (to my mind they are articles-proper, not "lists" at all). There are nearly 600 listed SPs of which it looks like over 400 have articles now. On a small sampling the vast majority are stub-sized articles drawing on the same sources as this one. If, say, 20 vessels would fit on a page, that then spreads the list over 20 separate pages; and, on the assumption that the list would be split numerically, that would remove the current ability to search the full list to find the SP number of the vessel sought. At the moment the coverage of smaller types of USN vessels is organised efficiently and practically and that structure should be left well alone. Exactly the same considerations apply to several other types of smaller USN vessels, not all in the patrol boat category.
As for AfD, picking off random examples which happen to pop up for unrelated reasons is (I bite my tongue) an inappropriate way to approach improving WP. And worse, USS Politesse (SP-662) is a cautionary example - on the same argumentation as above it was decided not to delete, but to merge with List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. What happened? The content was deleted, and it is left in the List as a circular redirect to itself. This is directly contrary to WP:MERGECLOSE. Now why would that be? Davidships (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Why exactly is it not appropriate to address random examples as they pop up?
As for lists, the main list could be kept for that sort of searching (or perhaps a category would achieve the same result with a main list analogous to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients), with subdivided lists developed further. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Wow, this took a left turn. To address the original question, the article should at least be moved in the interim to remove the USS from title since she wasn't commissioned. I'm happy to do that if there are no objections. What happens after that seems to be heading for a broader discussion... - wolf 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please do, wolf. Davidships (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Waited a few days to see if anyone had any further comments or objections, there were none, so the page has been moved to Gypsy (SP-55). This was done primarily to remove the "USS" prefix from a boat that was not commissioned. If anyone would prefer one of the other titles mentioned, or would like to suggest another one, they should feel to contribute their thoughts to the discussion. - wolf 09:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The MB itself is possibly Gypsy, 1912, George Lawley & Son, owner Robert F. Herrick with nearly identical dimensions. Herrick was a Harvard 1890 grad mentioned in Alumni Notes as having donated his Gypsy to the Navy. Not much else about that boat, but it was one of a series, with a later Herrick 56 foot Gypsy IV donated to the Army's harbor boat service and his 101 foot Gypsy to the Navy YP-70 for WW II. (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Cannot be added to the article as WP:OR, but you might add it to the talk page to help further ref searches. Davidships (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The thing nagged me because with that much I was pretty sure I had a good source somewhere in my memory and library of sources. The definite published link fixes the fact that it was Herrick's Gypsy of the Lloyd's registry and Harvard magazine that was SP-55. I added the $9,000 purchase price and owner based on that. I had that in my inventory of Section Patrol bookmarks. That whole Section Patrol is poorly explained and understood here as it was unlike the usual WW I "acquisition" and very much a thing of wealthy yachtsman, some even building boats in anticipation, of becoming "Navy" in event of war. Sources mention its being very popular on college campuses among sons and hangers on of yachting as well. For anyone interested the discussion of First Naval District here offers some background and Gypsy is listed here among the boats of the Boston Section. On finding more? I don't think that is likely outside local sources of the time. That Gypsy was only one of Herrick's and apparently not so interesting as to warrant a piece in the usual yachting sources. (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I was the admin who closed the USS Politesse (SP-662) AFD as merge, I was emailed by Davidships because the article was just redirected to the list. I've restored the article, since it is contrary to the close, but the target list (List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy) seems like it could be split up so these smaller articles can actually be systematically upmerged to smaller, manageable list articles. Just my 2c. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've long thought most of these SP (and other USN small vessel type) stubs should be treated much as are the Lists of Empire ships with organized pages with brief descriptions such as List of Empire ships (A). (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly what I've been thinking, as well, though I hadn't brought to mind the Empire ship lists. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
More than a few of those SP boats had interesting and even significant history as yachts that is not in any way reflected in DANFS. I've done that addition for a number and have a list of more. My criterion for spending the time when I get the inclination is that they have some design or even "social" history beyond just being another luxury toy of the late 19th or early 20th century (USS California (SP-249)). I can find racing histories with cups and times, but nothing of real interest. My last effort here was on the SPs that were and remained owned by the State of Maryland's "Oyster Police" (Governor R. M. McLane (steamboat)) — and those have interesting historic value with regard to the Chesapeake. Most do not and never will have much beyond the fact they existed, they raced or were associated with a wealthy individual and they served in the Section Patrol as SPs. Those should go to a list such as is used for the Empire ships that should also note bare bones and link to articles about the few that had other significance. (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I do find it a little odd that so many of the SP boats have articles while none of the Eagle boats, which were decently sized purpose warships, have individual articles, not event the ones that survived to WW2. In a related issue, I've created List of SC-1-class subchasers (SC-1 to SC-50) and List of SC-1-class subchasers (SC-51 to SC-100) - comments/insults are welcome - perhaps someone could do something similar for other miscellaneous US Navy ships such as the Section Patrol boats.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I expect that difference is simply the different coverage in DANFS. The converted yachts of the rich and famous (with a few commercial typs thrown in) had names before becoming SP. They had independent "publicists" during and after the war. Some were actually built in the period before U.S. entry to be patrol boats. It was a fad and can be seen in those motor boat yacht's design. A rich guy already racing built with Navy input the patrol boat he would command when war came to our shores was not uncommon in the SP world. They got little paragraphs under those names that were generally retained when the vessel and often the owner as commanding officer were called up. I had to laugh at text in USS Patrol No. 8 (SP-56): "Coincidentally, at this same time, Vanderbilt, a Naval Reserve officer, was ordered to active duty and given command the Patrol No. 8." No coincidence at all. He was the owner before both he and his boat were called up. The Eagle boats were no name "workers," just stamped out with no glamour and pedigree, stamped with a number, and then crewed largely by anonymous folk. They were covered entirely differently in the print DANFS, just a long list with bare bones dates. When people began copying DANFS into Wikipedia the named show dogs got "articles" and the mutts got nothing but a list and most will never get more. (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Blair[edit]

Article brought over from the french Wikipedia about a stowaway hooker on USS Arizona. Was just added to Arizona's see also section. Thoughts? - wolf 01:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely significant enough, especially given the severe repercussions, to merit a brief mention in the main chronology. If even a sentence is thought too much, then some annotation of the 'See also' would be helpful for readers. Davidships (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree, should be mentioned in prose on the ships article Lyndaship (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees. It's at AfD. - wolf 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Different question. There should be a mention in USS Arizona (BB-39), regardless of whether the Blair article stands or falls. 23 courts martial with up to 10 years in jail - and a serious reprimand for every officer from Captain to Ensign (how many?) - is a significant event in the life of the ship by any standard. More so, I would have thought, that the ship's use as a film location in 1934 for Cagney - and that makes it into the Lead. Davidships (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Life on board a ship is a major part of it's story, including unusual or out of the norm events. Broichmore (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW Friedman's US battleship book gives a complement of 55 officers, 860 enlisted as built for Arizona's sister Pennsylvania. I looked at several sources before finding one that gave the number of officers. Friedman does not give a complement figure for Pennsylvania as reconstructed in 1931; Conway's gives a total figure for Arizona of 1,052 after reconstruction. RobDuch (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Y'all are free to add the Blair info if y'all like. I don't believe that the incident was mentioned in Stilwell's history of the ship. I've ordered a replacement copy so I can add a good figure for the complement as I'm seeing a rather wide disparity in my sources on hand. In the meantime I'll replace the current subtly vandalized figure with something a bit more reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Got the book, updated the complement figures and covered Madeleine, though not like some of the crew did.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SS Mary Luckenbach (1918)[edit]

I have recently been in discussion with another editor as to the correct year dab for this ship. She was launched in 1918 under another name and did not become SS Mary Luckenbach until 1941 therefore as stated in WP:SHIPDAB In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch I feel that 1941 is correct. Conversely the section on WP:NCS for merchant ships says When the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name. I feel the DO NOT in the former trumps the CAN in the latter but I thought it best to check here before restoring my change Lyndaship (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the other editor in question. The accepted practice for disambuguation is that military ships that don't have pennant numbers are disambiguated by the year of commission, which is not always the same as the year of launch. Merchant ship disambiguation is generally by year of launch, not by year that the name was acquired. This particular Mary Luckenbach was launched in 1918. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Not that I doubt you, but can you provide any links to, or quotes from, any guidelines to support your comments, like Lyndaship has above? It would be helpful. Thanks - wolf 13:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
No, warships are disambiguated by year of launch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: - that does not apply to ships captured and put into service with the capturing navy. In these cases, the year of commission is used to dab. That is what I was getting at above. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Cannot fault Lyndaship's reading of the Guidelines, nor Mjroots' summary of normal and hitherto accepted practice. We are already just about the only modern reference source that defines merchant ships by launch year rather than completion (and Lloyd's Register gave up on that well over a century ago, I think), and dabs where necessary accordingly. It is likely that the vast majority of readers, knowledgable about ships or not, faced by a year as a dab, would assume that it is when the ship was built, regardless of whether it is on its first, second or umpteenth name or owner (I am not arguing to make any change now from launch to completion - there's far far too much water under the bridge on that). But the point now raised is another reason to revisit the Guidelines - I wonder whether there are any merchant ship articles that actually follow the letter of the guidelines in this regard? Davidships (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Good and interesting points well made by all editors and indeed there might well be grounds for reviewing the guidelines but my question is under the existing guidelines should this article be titled SS Mary Luckenbach (1918) or SS Mary Luckenbach (1941)? Lyndaship (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is decided here, it would be of great advantage if we were to use the same rules as does Commons... Can we not appoint a co-ordinator for such a task, consensus with Commons? Broichmore (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Commons uses completion date, which is far more subject to interpretation than launch date as French and Russian 19th century ships might be well be "finished, but not yet in service" for a variety of reasons, including performing sea trials, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sure that there are good arguments to support any of the possible preferences, which is why a review of our Guidelines on this would be welcome. Where is the Commons dab guidance for ships set out? I could only find in [4] the suggestion that there isn't a dab policy! Meanwhile no burning need to change anything on the article in question. Davidships (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty the ship articles should in general bear the ship name at the time of launching otherwise we end up with what we have today - completely arbitrary, subjective and contradictory policies. To answer your question - the ship really should be SS Sac City as it spent the majority of her career under that name, but if you want to retain the original title, then it's SS Mary Luckenbach (1918). Just my $0.02. Crook1 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't find that very attractive, for two reasons. (1) the principle of titling the ship with the name under which it was most notable is a good one - holding an article under some other name that nobody would be looking for seems odd to me. Of course that may not matter too much with redirects, but it plays havoc with Categories - the absence of MS Estonia or MS Achille Lauro from might seem odd (though it is accepted that this can happen with over-eventful ships) - not many editors seem to add categories to redirects. (2) Leaving notability aside, there is a significant minority of ships that never enter service with the name given at launch, or there is simply no launch name. Davidships (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that that's overthinking things a bit. I don't care what temporary name a ship had while under construction, although that might be worth a mention in the text, I'll use the name for the article that she was used when completed/commissioned and the date serves only a dab, nothing else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the reasons for the naming system in Commons was, that Wikipedia's per country differ in approach. The Germans, Dutch end many others use the year of completion for ships or first commissioning for naval ships. Have a look at the Wikipedia Nederlands. It works, as for many old ships it is inpossible to find the year of launching on the internet. Using the the year of completion, in most cases it is the year of the first trip with load or passengers. We use there the same system as in commons. The naming is standardised there, see here, compared with Category:Ship_names. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Although the Dutch wiki has that policy a quick look through the list of ships shows that many ships are dabbed by launch date and during a similar look at the German wiki all the ships I checked were dabbed by launch date Lyndaship (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That seems closer to my thinking, Sturmvogel66, except I would put it at a later name where that is the one that is the most notable, eg with MS Estonia. The year isn't used just for dabs, every ship goes into a 'Ships of 1956'-type Category. Davidships (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about ship tables in class articles[edit]

I'm working on some destroyer class articles and have been updating their ship tables. I always add laid down, launched and completed/commissioned info if I have it, but my question is about whether it's worth adding a "fate" column as well. One example with: Type 1934A destroyers and one without: Tátra-class destroyer. I can see how it would serve as a quick reference for the ultimate disposition of the ship, but I dislike it because I usually cover than in the main body and it seems a bit redundant to have it in both places. Plus, it feels really weird not to cover that in the main body. A related question would be how much information to cover in the table. I tend to be a minimalist in these sorts of things since the details should be in the main body, but you can see how much information that other editors have included which I would regard as unnecessary, but I know my bias in this matter. I'd prefer to have the reason for loss, date and if it happened in a battle, I'd add that, but that would be it. I really don't see the need to list the ship that sank her or whatever. Comments, thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of including fates in ship tables in class articles and related lists. I think it's all right if the fate is abbreviated in some way, but it needs to be there. The cause needs to be included, although I agree that over-identification of the enemy is not needed. An example was List of Royal Navy losses in World War II#Cruisers; before I edited it several ships were listed as "scuttled", with no information on enemy action that caused the scuttling. Many ship classes have too many ships to include an outline history for each one, and outline histories are difficult to glance over for information. Including fates in a table allows the reader to tell at a glance which vessels had tragic or unusual fates. RobDuch (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't include fates in the tables, since I use them just as construction info (see for instance here) - fates should be handled in the prose, where more details can be given, in my opinion. In general, I just do the yard and the dates of keel laying, launching, and commissioning (and then don't repeat that in the prose).
On the other hand, it would be impossible to give individual summaries of the 175 Fletchers in an article of any reasonable length, so a table would be a more appropriate solution, I think. I would agree that such tables should be kept to a minimum - something along the lines of "Sunk [date] in the Battle of X". Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I use the class pages mainly for checking information to be entered in ship index pages. I find having the fate mentioned in a table of immense value as it saves having to scan through a lot of prose. It should also be borne in mind that many minor warships do not have an individual article so the class article is the only place where the information can be found. Lyndaship (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Equasis template[edit]

Trying to follow Template:Cite ship register but maybe I am doing it wrong. It displays as it should in the Reflist, like this:"St Helena (8716306)". Equasis. French Ministry for Transport. Retrieved 2019-03-06.. However the link then leads to a "404 not found" page, regardless of whether I am logged in to Equasis, or not. Shouldn't it at least go to the registration/log-in page? Davidships (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Equasis have changed the layout of their website so our url for their search page no longer works. If this is true, do you know the url for their new search page? If you navigate to the Equasis page for St Helena, what is the url? In the olden days, {{csr}} had a url that included the value from |id=. In the best of all possible worlds, we should try to get back to that url form so that logged in users (at Equasis) can link directly to the appropriate Equasis page without having to go through search ...
Of course it may just be that Equasis have not changed their website and are just experiencing some sort of technical problem?
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Equasis does not allow direct linking to database entries; the direct link should be removed and only link to Equasis main page retained. Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"In the olden days". Of course, it was originally just open access, but then they introduced the registration requirement so, as Tupsumato says, direct linking to database entries, or even a live search page, would be self-defeating. Also I can see that individual ship data pages do not have individual URLs (it's compiling a page from the full database on demand), so there is nothing to link directly to anyway.
This is the starter page. Davidships (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I implemented the url that Editor Davidships provided. After that, Editor Ahecht changed it to this:{{{id}}}
That url is, I suppose, fine for readers / editors who are already logged in to Equasis. For those who are not already logged in, that url lands at an error message:
Your session has expired, please try to login again
Perhaps for editors that is not something that would be unexpected. For readers? I'm not so sure that we should be sending them to an error message page.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I like to have a direct link to where the data can actually be found, whenever possible. In this case, the worst that happens is that reader gets an error message prompting them to log in, which is required to acccess the referenced data anyway (and which we've already warned about with the gray lock icon). --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above. By the way, now that you are working on the template, could you check the other database links as well. Some may have changed in the recent past. Tupsumato (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Unfortunately that doesn't work for me. Using my example{{{8716306}}} - if already logged in I get error message "We're seems that we can't find the page you're looking for" and a pop-up "No ship has been found with your criteria". So it's now worse if you are already logged on than if you aren't (confirmed that it works properly if manually entering that IMO in the search box). Davidships (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Davidships: When the template is used, it would replace the entire {{{id}}} string, including the brackets, to produce That link works for me. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't work, "Page not found is all I get". Frankly, kind of pointless to redirect to a non-existing page. Crook1 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, @Ahecht:, that works if I am already logged in. If I am logged out, I get the log-in/register page which is what I would expect. Well done. Davidships (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

USS Ranger (1777)[edit]

There is a post on the Milhist talk page regarding this ship; see here. FYI - wolf 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Vikrant-class aircraft carrier into INS Vikrant (2013)[edit]

You might want to comment on this merger proposal. —Gazoth (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick Miramar query[edit]

Hey folks, I've just run across two references to a different keel laying date for Brazilian battleship São Paulo.[1] While I'd normally wave this away and assume Conway's is a solid definitive source, the two publications worked directly with British shipyard construction records, and the two dates aren't especially close (30 April for Conway's, 24 September for these two). Could anyone take a look at Miramar's entry for this ship to give me a third data point? Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton, The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships (Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing, 2013); David Topliss, "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts, 1904–1914," Warship International 25, no. 3 (1988): 240–89.
Miramar just says June 1907 for keel laying Lyndaship (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Lyndaship! That is, ironically, yet another date. :-) (Conway's says 30 April; Johnson/Buxton and Topliss say 24 September.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixing ping and a quick additional ask—can you give me the ship id Miramar has it under? I cited Miramar in Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes but not São Paulo for some reason... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
6103921Crook1 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I asked Ian Buxton about this and he confirmed that he researched directly Vickers records - the Vickers databook has order 20.2.07, keel 24.9.07, launch 19.4.09. He added "My copy of Conways is full of corrections in the RN section. I was told that the editors also had many corrections later, but Conways refused to produce a revised edition and preferred to keep on reprinting the old one." Food for thought. (I will not edit in relation to this per WP:EXTERNALREL.) Davidships (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ships named Enterprise[edit]

Can someone tell me what happened to the article Ships named Enterprise? I worked for weeks on that, and I can't find it. User:Pedant (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you did, it didn't get saved under that name. There once was a Category:Ships named Enterprise. You edited that category page at various time in 2004 and 2006 but there is nothing there that indicates that you worked for weeks on that. I searched your contribution history for the text 'ship' and 'enterp' but found nothing like what you are describing.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
If it exists, it should be at List of ships named Enterprise. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

USCG dispute[edit]

Please see Talk:United States Coast Guard#Founding dispute. (self-explanatory). FYI - wolf 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

MARAD Ship History links[edit]

The with a number linked to ship histories and data cards is gone at least for now. The server has changed to but simple substitution there does not work and searches for the ship history part fail. This may be another glitchy roll out or it may be another abandonment of a valuable historical service by another federal agency. If we are fortunate all the links to Vessel Status Cards for detail about historical ships of the last half of the 20th century will be fixable by replacement of server information — but then such competence in continuity seems too rare. (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Update. They know the section is down with the new platform and are working to get it back. We can hope that the linkage will be in a format so that a bot can fix any broken links. (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)