Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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. 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.jpg
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources


Type 054A frigate; number active[edit]

The Jane's article China commissions Type 054A frigate into East Sea Fleet by Ridzwan Rahmat (20 January 2015) reports the commissioning of Huanggang, and that:

The PLAN is expected to operate a class of up to 22 ships and, according to IHS Jane's , Huanggang is the 20th vessel.

Does "20" refer to the total number of ships commissioned? Or does it mean Huanggang is the 20th ship that began construction or the 20th noticed by Jane's?

I believe the latter interpretation is more likely, based on the Jane's article China adding towed sonars to Type 054A, Type 056 vessels by Andrew Tate (31 August 2014) which states:

The images, published on the cjdby.net website, show a large aperture cut out of the transom and installation of mechanical handling gear on Type 054A hulls 19 & 20 (Pennant number 576, Huangshi and 577, Huanggang ).

Your thoughts are appreciated to clear up a dispute in the Type 054A article. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted RevelovingPersonalityConduct's last edit. The reasons are clearly stated as below.

Adding additional reliable Chinese source to back up the truth.

[1] This source is from Chinese news media and it is original not some redirected stuffs.

The above source clear says that there are in fact more than just 20 054A active in the Chinese navy. "中国海军装备的054A型护卫舰数量已经超过了20艘,成为当仁不让的主力舰艇." Translation: " Chinese navy has commissioned more than 20 054A, 054A has become the work horse of the navy."

This material confirmed what Janes source stated. See Jane's source [2]

At last to debunk "RevelovingPersonalityConduct's" argument. His source is from the Dod Annual report. Which is from 2014, as its materials repeated stated:

1. "Preparation of this report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $92,000 in Fiscal Years 2014-2015. This includes $3,000 in expenses and $89,000 in DoD labor."

This clearly means that this report covers stuffs from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014. Yet RevelovingPersonalityConduct stated that as of May/31/2015, which is clearly not true.

2. At page 5 of the DoD report: "During 2014, the PLA continued to improve its capabilities for theater contingencies, including: cruise missiles; short- and medium range ballistic missiles; high performance aircraft; integrated air defense; information operations; and amphibious and airborne assault. "

Once again, it says that it is from 2014 no where near did it mentioned May/31/2015. As we all know by know, China commissioned additional 3 054A by June, 29/2015 as it was stated on multiple reliable Chinese and western English source ! Yet, he keeps arguing.

3. At page 12 of the DoD report it once again stated: "In 2014, China started reclaiming land and building enhanced infrastructure at its outposts in the Spratly Islands. When complete, these facilities could include harbors, communications and surveillance systems, logistics support, and at least one airfield. "

Throughout the DoD annual report. It mentioned the year 2014 countless amount of time, but NEVER once did it mention May/2015. Yet he keeps trying to push his agenda through. The same behavior can be found on the Type 93 submarine page as well. He keeps using outdated source to vandalize the 093 article as well by say that there are only 2 093 active as of May/29/2015, where there are sources proving the otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.123 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet with overwhelming evidence, RevelovingPersonalityConduct keeps deleting recent, updated, and reliable source and only keeps his own source. More importantly, he lied about the time and date of his source by stating that: "As of May/31/2015." When the truth from his own source clearly stated that the materials he present was only valid from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014.

Therefore, with the above overwhelming evidence. I reverted his edit. But I did not remove his source, simply corrected it.

Thank you.

--199.116.175.123 (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. You're finally deigning to use talk pages. I direct interested parties to Talk:Type 054A frigate to avoid duplication. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

help needed on ambiguous links in ship articles[edit]

Hi, there are just about a hundred articles in WikiProject Ships that have an ambiguous link needing to be fixed. Regular editors at the wp:DPL project, and me now too, are fighting towards elimination of all-but-brand-new ambiguous links in Wikipedia within a year now, and could use your help!

Here is an application of CatScan search tool to find WP:SHIPS dabs which takes a minute or two to run. Scroll down to see results. Running it now yields 96 articles, including:

  1. Aetna-class ironclad floating battery (delinked connection to Thomas Lloyd dab) Yes check.svg Done
  2. Aikoku Maru (1940) Yes check.svg Done
  3. Boat building Yes check.svg Done
  4. Brazilian tanker Almirante Gastão Motta (G23) Yes check.svg Done
  5. Finnish submarine Vesikko Yes check.svg Done
  6. French ship Hercule (1836) Yes check.svg Done
  7. HMS Blossom (1806) Yes check.svg Done
  8. Japanese cruiser Takasago Yes check.svg Done
  9. List of German Navy ship classes Yes check.svg Done
  10. List of shipwrecks in April 1943 Yes check.svg Done

Programmer/editor dispenser's DabSolver tool can find the ambiguous term and help you fix it. Just paste in the article name, run it, and you only have to pick which target the term should be linked to, from a drop down menu, as long as the intended target is given as an option on the disambiguation page. DabSolver usually works, except for ship articles it sometimes turns out that the ambiguous term is a ship's name hidden inside an {{SS}} template call, in which case you could probably only find it by checking what each ship name in an article links to. Clear the ambiguous link by finding the more precise link intended, or by unlinking the term. The Daily Disambig shows the overall project's progress. It would be great to see the ship articles get struck off wp:DPL's big working list! TIA for any help. :) cheers, --doncram 05:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed one. Might be usseful to list them all for attention. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If you hit the link provided by User:Doncram, you get a live list. I don't think there's any need to list them here, and then try to keep that (dead) list up to date. I note the tally is down to 86 (from 96). Shem (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I get a message that the database connection is down. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I get that on Dab Solver (but it works fine); CatScan seems fine (although there is a bit of a lag - List of shipwrecks in April 1943 is still showing but you've done it - and Dab Solver confirms that). Tally is now 85 (84 with List of shipwrecks in April 1943)! Shem (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I just struck out 2 by Shem and 1 by me from 10 listed above. Hmm, this is a bit inefficient, to cut-and-paste from the list above, only to find there's no dablink to fix, and then see in history that Shem did it already. :) So it would be better to select from a newly generated CatScan report. When I run it again, maybe 20 minutes later, it was updated. Tally is now 83.
About the Finnish submarine Vesikko, the ambiguous link is Madsen within a tabulation of the vessel's armaments. Choices to fix it with are Madsen machine gun, Madsen-Saetter machine gun, Madsen M-50 or Madsen 20 mm anti-aircraft cannon. But there are some extra numbers in the tabulation of Vesikko's armaments that I don't understand, and I wonder if the Madsen articles should be moved to more descriptive titles first. (At least 3 out of 4 are machine guns, so isn't the first title too broad? For the last one, why is "20 mm" in the article name, when it covers other models?). Someone more familiar with the topic area needs to see if it makes sense and pick the right link. --doncram 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I cleared most of the lists of shipwrecks - 1927 is an inter-language link so will need to be done manually. We may need the assistance of MILHIST members for some of the links. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like some good work is going on. Doncram - it sounds like you might want to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history if you haven't already done so. They may be able to help with your machine gun. Shem (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest count: 65. Shem (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Now: 58. Shem (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest count: 37. Shem (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
All done now? Shem (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Running the CatScan report again shows all 96 have been cleared. A big thank you to Shem1805 who cleared 52, Mjroots who cleared 9, and others for your cooperation in taking this on. And it's to the credit of everyone in the Wikiproject, also, to have tended the project's articles very carefully already: having just 96 out of about 35,000 mainspace articles was a pretty low rate to start with. Zero out of 35,000 is amazing! For wp:DPL, I thank you. :) --doncram 06:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Mistral-class ships[edit]

Since France and Russia cancelled the deal recently, the articles on the two Mistral-class ships, Vladivostok and Sevastopol, should be renamed. Any ideas? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until they're sold to another country and renamed - from what I've seen, sales to Saudi Arabia and/or Egypt are rumored. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, per Parsecboy. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
No basis for any change under WP:COMMONNAME. The vessels are not known as anything else. Davidships (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Naval Institute Processings?[edit]

In our list of 'journals' cited by Wikipedia, a source named Naval Institute Processings seems to often have been used. I am almost entirely sure this is meant to be Naval Institute Proceedings, so I created the redirects accordingly.

This is still weird to me, and such a widespread typo must have a certain cause. If I'm wrong let me know. If I'm right, someone will want to a database search for "Naval Institute Processings" and replace it with "Naval Institute Proceedings" and investigate why this is so widespread.

Regards, Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Naval Institute Processings shows three links; this page and two others. At the two others is a link to a Wikipedia search page but that search returns results for various combinations of the three words so I added quotes and got less than twenty hits which I've fixed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll point out in [3] (and likely elsewhere), that it would be much better to use |journal=[[Naval Institute Proceedings]] than |journal=[[United States Naval Institute|Naval Institute Proceedings]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right. But, since the choice of the target Wikipedia page was made by the editors of those (mostly) carrier strike group articles (there are a few others), as is their right to do, I am content to leave it to those editors to fix or not fix as they choose.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{{sclass-}} issue[edit]

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

{{sclass-|Lord Clive|monitor||warship}}Lord Clive-class monitor
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Trappist. Llammakey (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing publications/journals[edit]

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

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

AfC submission[edit]

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

Ship naming, re-designations and source[edit]

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

AfD[edit]

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