Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

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

HMS Bramble (J11)[edit]

Article HMS Bramble (J11) built 1942 has an image attached which is a Halcyon minesweeper. See Commons. Meanwhile Commons has another image which is marked hull number J11 and its cataloged against Algerine minesweepers, which is the Bramble built in 1945. On the disambiguation page it says 1945 is the pennant J273. Can the J11 pennant apply to both? Do you agree that "File:HMS Bramble 1945 IWM FL 2816.jpg" is the Algerine? Any comments? Broichmore (talk) 10:53 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Where do 80 more planned Matsu-class destroyers come from ?[edit]

Since Matsu-class destroyer was created , the infobox and it's ship of the class list were listed:

42 (1943, Ship #5481-5522),
32 (1944, Ship #4801-4832),

In built and planned ship information.

But since 13 September 2008‎ , a user named Mystia Lorelei added this in ship of the class list:

80 (1945, Kai-Tachibana class) 

In infobox and added:

Ship # Japanese name & translation Class Builder Laid down Launched Completed Fate
80 destroyers Kai-Tachibana Cancelled on 30 June 1945.

It makes me suspicious that , there's no Kai-Tachibana class in IJN history , only Matsu-class and it's subclass Tachibana-class destroyer , so does anyone got a proof that IJN planned 80 more Matsu-class destroyers in 1945 ? --Comrade John (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jentschura, et al, Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, p. 153, confirms 80 more Kai-Tachibana were planned for 1944-45, but were never ordered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Is this the only sources that states 80 more Matsu-class destroyers planned in 1945 ? Also , Kai-Tachibana , is author misunderstood 80 more Tachibana as Kai-Tachibana or there's a Kai-Tachibana subclass in IJN history ? --Comrade John (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Dunno, it's the only one that I could think of off-hand. Jentschura actually calls then Improved Tachibana which is pretty much what Kai-Tachibana means. He doesn't, however, provide any stats, so I couldn't say how they were "improved".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The Ian Allan series book "Japanese Warships of World War II" by Anthony J. Watts (1973 reprint) briefly states that 80 more Matsus were planned in the 1944-45 programme but never ordered, on p. 155. Conway's, p. 196, states"11 further units were cancelled in 1944 before construction began" but otherwise has nothing on the 80. RobDuch (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Tankers, Oilers and Replenishment Oilers[edit]

I'm getting in a pickle with these. The problem initially appeared on INS Shakti where the ship class linkage resulted in tanker coming up as a blue link to a dab page. I found a way around that by using a piped link but when I looked at Tanker (ship) it said correctly that a tanker is a merchant vessel and the term for a military refueling vessel is an oiler. Using the sclass template Oiler gives the same get roundable problem as Tanker however there is no oiler(ship) article and from the dab (or link to) you are invited to go to tanker (which we know is incorrect) or Replenishment oiler. Looking at replenishment oiler it states correctly its a ship which provides fuel and DRY CARGO ie Refuels and Replenishes (where as an oiler could just provide fuel). Ah I thought just create a page for oiler(ship) but then I hit the problem of identifying which ships solely provide fuel to correctly title and categorise them as oilers. Whats caused me to throw my hands up and ask for suggestions here is the new British Tide-class tanker - yes thats right TANKER, checked on the Royal Navy site and its how they are referring to them, and then look at Tide-class replenishment oiler, I believe they were just oilers. I'm minded to go with my initial idea of creating oiler(ship) but without trying to subdivide the existing articles into oilers and replenishment oilers however I hate doing half a job and I envisage looking at the Tide class example this could turn into a can of worms. Grateful for ideas and guidance Lyndaship (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, I have an idea that there is a transatlantic difference in usage - 'Fleet tanker' or 'replenishment tanker' would be the normal usage in UK, I think. In other words, the premise that 'replenishment' refers to non-oil may not be well founded. I'm away at present to cannot see what Jane's or Colledge uses historically. And then usage may well have changed over time. I suspect that American use of 'oiler' goes back at least as far as the coining of the type designation 'AO', at which time 'AT' was allocated to fleet tugs (later ATA, ATF etc). Davidships (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this problem a couple of years ago, but decided not to open the "can of worms". USN replenishment oilers (AOR) carried both stores and fuel, but it appears none are currently active. A ship type of similar concept is the "fast combat support ship" (AOE or T-AOE) (the T in this case meaning a Military Sealift Command vessel, and the E referring to ammunition, see also ammunition ship (AE)). The USN adopted the "current" hull classification symbol system on 17 July 1920, and at least USS Kanawha (AO-1) was in service at that time. There is also the "transport oiler" (AOT), such as SS Petersburg (T-AOT-9101). I am not clear on the difference between AO and AOT, but my guess is the AOT may be unable to provide underway replenishment. The issue is definitely confused for the USN and more so from a worldwide perspective. I have no input on other navies' terminology. RobDuch (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI - these articles/ship types were mentioned here a few years ago (see here), also see these commemts and this merge proposal. I fairly certain there are other discussions, debates and move, merge & fork proposals to be found. There has been a deal of confusion over the years regarding these ships, what they do and what they're called. - theWOLFchild 06:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm no naval expert, but that won't stop me adding my twopennorth...
I know the term "oiler" mainly from Battle at Sea by British historian John Keegan in relation to Japanese and U.S. ships in the Pacific Theatre. It is impossible to tell why or how carefully he chose the word. The Wikipedia descriptions of USS Cimarron (AO-22) and USS Sabine (AO-25) suggest that their sole function was refuelling. Both articles link to replenishment oiler.
The most usual Royal Navy term does seem to be "tanker". At least, that is how RFA Kharki (1899-1936) has been described (along with "tank-vessel", "tank steamer" and "oil steamer" in contemporary news articles). She seems to have been solely a refuelling vessel (apart from delivering the occasional chronometer). Unlike Tide-class tankers, which are multi-purpose; and Tide-class replenishment oilers, which may have been multi-purpose. Nevertheless, the RN has used "oiler" from time to time; see e.g. Wave-class oiler (not to be confused with Wave-class tanker - what a mess...).
I would prefer a title based around "oiler" for any general article(s) about the military meaning. In everyday British English, a petrol tanker has wheels and an oil tanker is a merchant ship. Narky Blert (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In this video @28:40, a man with a decidedly English accent attests to at least the informal use in the RN in 1941 of "oiler" to mean "replenishment oiler". Narky Blert (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - fascinating find. However firstly its not a contemporary use of the term oiler but a later expert using it when the documentary was made (and for an American channel) and secondly he doesn't refer to a replenishment oiler at all just an oiler. The key articles and redirects have now been sorted but I've no appetite for trying to amend the individual articles to define them into oilers, replenishment oilers, tankers, fleet tankers etc. Lyndaship (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've now recognised him - Ludovic Kennedy. Not a later expert: in 1941, he was an officer on HMS Tartar (F43). Not WP:RS of course, but it does suggest that "oiler" is a long-established term in the RN. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to general articles, such as Replenishment oiler, provided they have appropriate redirects from replenishment tanker to respect British usage - the phrase is used over 250 articles, currently linked only by piping. But articles on individual classes or ships should adopt the appropriate common or accepted usage in the relevant version of English.
My 1980 Jane's uses only "tanker" for RN entries, and usually "oiler" for USN vessels. But I do not have a run of Jane's to see whether it that has changed over time. Also it should not be forgotten that some naval tankers do not have equipment for at-sea replenishment and are only used for shipments of fuel from terminal to terminal, exactly like a merchant tanker.Davidships (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. From your comments it's obvious that US and UK usage varies and that the whole subject can be a vehicle for confusion, I've come across British RFAs which are deemed replenishment ships but can also supply a bit of fuel, there are military tankers which carry water, there is the issue of oilers or tankers which operate as cargo carriers and never refuel ships, there are Aviation fuel tankers. Therefore I propose to create oiler(ship) with a text along the lines of "A military ship which refuels other ships but does not replenish dry stores -see replenishment oiler" and to change tanker(ship) along the lines of " A merchant vessel which conveys fluids. Military vessels which refuel ships are known as an oiler in some navies and tankers in others, if they also supply dry stores they are known as replenishment oilers or replenishment tankers." - not my final wording, just the gist. I'm going to leave the class and ship types alone as I hope these amendments will stop any contradictions Lyndaship (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That seems a sensible approach, Lyndaship, though I would change the Lead of Tanker (ship) to "A tanker is a ship which conveys....". The more specific articles can considered individually as appropriate. Davidships (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

HMS Malelina[edit]

See HMS Britannia (1820), the headline image by John H. Wilson (1774-1855)" includes a mystery ship. The Commons description is "HMS Britannia and HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834". It's currently on sale and the dealer gives a description of "HMS Britannia And HMS Malelina Entering Milos Harbour, 2nd January 1834 At 9.30am". Very specific! Can anyone identify the Malelina or it's correct name? Broichmore (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it HMS Malabar (1818), a 74-gun third rate? Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Correspondence in the Times in December 1933 indicates that the Malabar and Britannia were in the mediterranean at the same time. "The English have in the Mediterranean three-deckers, the Britannia, with Admiral Malcolm's flag, the Saint Vincent, and Caledonia, two seventy-fours, the Talavara and Malabar, the two cut down ships the Barham and Alfred, the Madagacar frigate, and several sloops and brigs." MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Both vessels appear to be merchantmen as they are flying the red ensign. Could they be East Indiamen? Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Until 1864 the Red Ensign was one of the RN's three ensigns, and it was only in that year that it was re-allocated to merchant shipping. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Davidships - in which case, what flag should be shown for a British merchantman before 1864, the Union flag? This could potentially impinge on many shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
... and hundreds of ship articles! Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
From the order in council regulating the ensigns in 1864: "The increased number and size of merchant steam-ships render it a matter of importance to distinguish on all occasions men-of-war from private ships by a distinctive flag; the latter vessels bearing at present the same red ensign as Your Majesty's ships when employed under an Admiral of the Red Squadron." Red it is. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect it was Malabar - she seems to have travelled with Britannia in 1833/4. They left the Dardanelles together for Naples on 6 August 1833, refitted at Vourla Bay between 23 November and 4 December and arrived at Valetta together on 18 February 1834. It is therefore entirely plausible that they could both have been at Milos on 2 January 1834 (source is here for Malabar and here for Britannia from a site that collates newspaper reports of sailings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumelow (talkcontribs) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


OK, we're talking about the period 1707-1854 by the look of it. What flags should be used to identify Royal Navy vessels and merchantmen?

1707-1800 Royal Navy:- Kingdom of Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain
Merchantmen:- Kingdom of Great Britain or Kingdom of Great Britain / Kingdom of Great Britain

1801-1854 Royal Navy:- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Merchantmen:- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland / United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

This is what I'm trying to work out, as it will affect hundreds, even thousands, of articles and lists. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So far as I can see, for merchant ships it has formally been just the red ensign since 1674, and "The wording of the 1674 proclamation indicates that the flag was customarily being used by English merchantmen before that date." So three versions of the plain red ensign: pre-1707, 1707-1801 and 1801-to-present, and consequently I think that there will be hardly any merchant-ship articles to worry about. I have not forgotten that merchant vessels do fly the blue ensign in certain circumstances, but as that depends on the presence of certain Royal Navy crewmembers or reservists, that would normally be inappropriate for ship articles. There will, though, be a some merchant ship articles where defaced versions of the red or blue ensigns will be appropriate.
For naval ships, it looks like a dog's breakfast (aka can of worms). If it correct that it was the status of the Admiral ("of the white", of the red", "of the blue") that determined the vessel's flag prior to 1864, then vessels may have changed ensign from time to time. It might well be best to just stay with the white ensign as the conventional symbol for a British naval vessel. But I am no expert on that area at all. Perhaps a sigh of relief, Mj? Davidships (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
To again quote the 1864 order in council, referring to the flag officers classed in squadrons, "this regulation necessitating the adoption of ensigns and pendants of a corresponding colour in every ship and vessel employed under their orders, each vessel is therefore supplied with three sets of colours, and the frequent alterations that have to be made when the Fleet is distributed at present, under the Orders of many Flag Officers, is attended with much inconvenience from the uncertainty and expense which the system entails". Quite apart from the fact that the White Ensign is unrepresentative of RN ships pre-1864, the Admiralty specifically referred to the "frequent alterations" of colours when formally petitioning to change the system. A Union Flag might be the wisest option to follow. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The White Ensign would only be unrepresentative of RN ships before 1864 if it wasn't in use until then. It clearly was in use before 1864. The general readership will associate the White Ensign with the Royal Navy, so there is nothing inherently wrong with using it to identify RN ships. I am completely opposed to using the Union Flag to denote RN ships. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

HMS La Hogue[edit]

Theres a request for a move at this page. The proposer wants to include a date dab in the title. Personally I think its a good idea but it goes against policy as its the only La Hogue, however there are two later ships called just Hogue and I suspect this one was also later referred to as just Hogue. Lyndaship (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's my belief that all ship names should include the launch year, it's the only way of future proofing names. Furthermore we should not use pennant numbers (because they can change), I would avoid hull numbers too, unless required as a suffix to disambiguate the very rare instances of a vessel launched the same year. Both Commons and Wikipedia should be standardized to follow the same format. As for the La and L' in front of ship names its the convention to drop it. As we do with the; see French ship Aigle as an example. Though HMS La Hogue on the face of it is a hen's tooth exception, it's actually named after the shortened version of a place in France (Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue). I would suggest that the later two ships's named HMS Hogue were named after the first ship as opposed to first's eponymous battle. Broichmore (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
But WP:AT, which is policy, prohibits the use of disambiguation when it's not necessary. As for definite articles, there's nothing in WP:NCSHIP that prohibits the use of definite articles in article titles, just in prose (and there's a difference between writing "the Fantasque" and acknowledging the fact that the ship had "Le Fantasque" painted on the side of the hull). There are plenty of articles that do use them - see for instance Le Fantasque-class destroyer, L'Adroit-class destroyer, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with your main point that it would be better if all ships had the launch year as dab. Disagree totally with dropping La, L' or Le if it forms part of the ships name. Aigle is not a good example as its never had a Le in front of the name, compare L'Adroit-class destroyer where some ships of the class have a Le and some don't. As the final Hogue was a Battle class destroyer I favour that it was named after the battle Lyndaship (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Try looking up L'Aigle; which it is commonly called. Policy doesn't catch everything; there is a good case for disambiguation here. Look at Commons: there are 11 ships named Atlas, 18 Berlin, 22 Columbia. 18 named Enterprise, only 10 dated, the rest pennant/hull numbers, 1 nothing at all... Thanks to Star Trek there will be more, a 100 years from now? Broichmore (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Where would you like us to look up L'Aigle? Cos if you look in Conways, Couhat or Masson its always just Aigle Lyndaship (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
All the Aigles have been just that, except the current Tripartite-class minehunter which is L'Aigle (the names of none of the others of that class include a definite article) Davidships (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Briochmore, the thing you're confusing with "Le/La/L'" is that some ships had the definite article as part of their actual name, and others did not. Compare Le Triomphant with Ouragan - one is part of the actual name of the ship, the other is not, even though individuals may in passing refer to L'Ouragan. If you go back through the archives of this wikiproject, the consensus you'll find is that that is the distinction we use when deciding whether to use the definite article in an article's title or not (because, as Lynda hints at, that's what reliable sources will generally use).
As for policy, no, it's not a catch all, but you generally need to have a compelling reason to ignore policy, and "because I think consistency is nice" is not a compelling reason. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, we don't "future-proof" titles, because it's impossible (we could put William Shakespeare at William Shakespeare (playwright), but another playwright might come along. And true for every level of detail you might add to a qualifier. Future Wikipedia will have its own editors to keep things running. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And for those wondering why, the reason we don't future proof titles is because it frequently results in an empty base name for obscure topics - I don't know how many times I've come across an article titled "HMS Foo (year)" and there's nothing at "HMS Foo". Readers typing in "HMS Foo" in the search bar will have a harder time finding the article they're looking for. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW, even though this RM didn't result in a move, the arrangement of moving HMS La Hogue to a qualified name would be in line with WP:AT (specifically WP:PRECISION) if the resulting redirect were made into a a redirect to another title (either the new primary topic for the title or to a disambiguation page). But as pointed out in this RM, even though that would be in line with WP:AT, the WP:SMALLDETAILS of the "La" are sufficient to overcome the technical problems of having two or more articles share a title, and the hatnotes will enable reader navigation if they don't reach their intended topic the first time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Machias[edit]

British designation question: A British armed sloop is consistently referred to as "HM Margaretta" in the subject article's infobox, but lacks a prefix in the body. Is this designation correct, and if so what does it stand for? I looked at the article due to a conflict with Battle off Fairhaven as the "first" naval engagement of the American Revolution (probably hinges on the definition of "naval"). RobDuch (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

With no replies, I'll use own judgement and call it "HMS", as the captain is called a "Midshipman" (god help us all). RobDuch (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

JDS or JS[edit]

The prefix for Japanese ships was changed from JDS to JS at the end of 2007. I've noticed a lack of consistency in articles and red links in class articles for ships which served both before and after the change. Do we have a policy? If not, we could either go for once a JDS always a JDS based either on order date, launch date or commissioned date. Or if the ship was in commission on 1 Jan 2008 it's a JS. Don't think any of these ships will be better known as one or other in the English speaking world. I favour making the launch date the defining criterion as it's usually the most easily obtainable date but if another editor subsequently changes the prefix on an article because the bulk or even all of it's active service was as a JS I'm happy to let it go on the basis of most common name Lyndaship (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"The ship prefix JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) was used until 2008, at which time JMSDF ships started using the prefix JS (Japanese Ship) to reflect the upgrade of the Japanese Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense.". Of course, I'm still in favor of dropping ship prefixes because general readers have little to no clue what they are, but that's for another discussion. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
But one of the reasons we have this project is so people can learn. I don't think we should do away with relevant content just because some readers don't know what it means. Ship prefixes are an important part of ship articles, especially naval ships. (imho) - theWOLFchild 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:NC-S, it's neither. We don't use IJN/HIJMS for Imperial Japanese Navy vessels, nor do we use JDS/JS for JSDF vessels. They take the form "Japanese (ship type) (ship name) (disambiguator if required)". Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression that JDS/JS were/are actual prefixes, not invented ones like IJN/HIJMS. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe JDS/JS are official prefixes and certainly they are used on articles here. I've changed my mind on when we should use JS. I now think if the ship served after 2008 article titles should be JS. However as there's been no comments (and a consensus of one who changed her mind after making the proposal has no validity) on setting a policy I'm not going to change anything Lyndaship (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
That seems a logical approach, Lyndaships - with a JDS redirect for those ships that straddle the divide. Davidships (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

More advice on ships and memorials[edit]

Would it be possible to get more advice on ships and memorials? This is mainly in relation to WWI and WWII. I raised this here back in February. Since then, I have done some work on List of ships named on the Tower Hill Memorial (see also notes left on talk page). I'm not sure where to go from there, as there are several ways the list could be developed. It is not intended to be complete, but I would appreciate some advice on what a sensible cut-off point would be for identifying ships where articles might be suitable that haven't been created yet, and/or for pointing to lists and sections in articles where a shipwreck or sinking might be covered. Some ships are also red-links from disambiguation pages (e.g. SS Britannia (1889) listed at SS Britannia). Would it be acceptable to include those as red-links that presumably may get created at some point? Depending on the advice received here, I might also return to Helles Memorial and other memorials where shipwrecks and sinkings are either named directly on the memorial, or are linked to the memorial in reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:REDLINK, these are valid redlinks. Check the various lists of shipwrecks covering WWI and WWII, there are many redlinks in them. All of these are capable of being turned into articles in due course. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there an easy way to pick out the UK merchant shipping from those lists (I did look through them, but gave up after a while as it was taking a long time - I eventually wikified a list of all the ship names on the memorial along with the most common prefixes and checked all the blue links)? It is a bit more complicated than that, as some of the shipping named on the Tower Hill Memorial was sailing under and flying a non-UK flag, but had UK merchant seamen on board, and if they were among the missing dead then that ship and their names ended up on the memorial. The trouble I have is that I have no real idea where the line is drawn. How do I know if a red-link is a genuine potential article, or someone linking a non-notable ship that will never get an article? Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It depends how easy you want it to be. If you are looking for tables already sortable by flag, then that is not available, but since by at least one generally accepted definition "UK merchant shipping" means, at least at that time, ships registered in UK ports, and "British merchant shipping" would add the ships on the British register from other ports in the Empire, that is quickly identifiable as United Kingdom, Canada etc are named and every entry has the ensign as a visual check
On the question of notability there was a very useful discussion about this a decade ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 12#Notability of Merchant ships. I think that in the shipwreck lists, red links pretty well follow that thinking, and some of the (few) unlinked might turn out to be notable. In reality, not all the red links will ever be written as stand-alone articles (not only from sourcing limitations, but even more so from the enormous task for editors to write them), but there is probably considerable scope for more ship-class, convoy or shipowner articles, which can have mini-histories of individual vessels. Davidships (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I'll have a think about this. Might start with inserting some information in shipwreck lists. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page[edit]

HMS Rodney (1884) links to the DAB page Queensferry. Can any expert help solve this puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed Queensferry to Firth of Forth and sourced as presumably she moored at a buoy! Lyndaship (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Neat solution, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)