Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Ship index.2FDisambiguation

I started this article, but I'm confused. Should it be MV De Zonnebloem or MS De Zonnebloem? Thanks! 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Depends on what sources refer to it as. I'm not sure about how it works in Germany, but both could be correct. GGOTCC 02:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

: Given that there's no article named De Zonnebloem, do we even need a prefix to disambiguate? Tupsumato (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::The use of MV (motor vessel) or MS (motor ship) is entirely down to creator's preference. As for De Zonnebloom, there were windmills of this name at [https://www.molendatabase.nl/molens/ten-bruggencate-nr-03490-a Zaamslag] and [https://www.molendatabase.nl/molens/ten-bruggencate-nr-10156 Rotterdam]], in the Netherlands. I'd stick with a prefix. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Good point. No need to omit it if there have been other uses for the same name. Tupsumato (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Are colleagues aware that Wikimedia Commons has hundreds of ship and ship-related images from the Museum aan de Stroom? Unfortunately, most seem to be uncategorised, except for "Category:MAS Museum aan de stroom", which contains more than 79,000 files. Therein I have found images with which to illustrate {{MV|Akka}}; John Bush (Royal Navy officer); and {{SS|Nick Stoner}}. I cropped and tidied the photo of Nick Stoner, but not that of Akka, as by then I was getting daunted by the sheer scale of work that the contents of "Category:MAS Museum aan de stroom" merit.

I have fully categorised maybe a couple of dozen images from Museum aan de stroom, of ships that I am able to identify. A few others I have partly categorised; and added to "Category:Unidentified ships in Belgium"; in the hope that other colleagues may find them there and be able to identify them.

"Category:MAS Museum aan de stroom" has 24 sub-categories, but only one is ship-related: "Category:Technical drawings of Cockerill Yards". Would it be helpful to create other categories: one for ships, and perhaps another for barges and boats? All of Museum aan de stroom's ship images could then be collated in them, where colleagues could more easily find and try to identify them. However, even this task feels like it would take more time than I can currently devote.

The uploader has misnamed few of the images, which need correcting. Aikaterini was misnamed A. Ikaterini, which I have had corrected. I have requested the renaming of an image of Torgny Lagman, which is mis-labelled Aden. My favourite so far is a ship called Albany, which the uploader has given the pseudo-Arabic name Al Bany!

Many of the images are uploaded by "User:Mr.Nostalgic". It seems that on most days, he uploads a few hundred more images, all with "Category:MAS Museum aan de stroom" as their only category. He has been told off for this type of uploading before. For example, in October 2024, "User:Periegetes" asked him "Please pay attention to categorizing files: Do not put files on top level categories e.g. "Old maps". You should place files in sub-categories of main category, especially when there is explicit instruction to do so on the category page as is the case with category "Maps"." "Mr.Nostalgic" did not reply to Periegetes.

Currently, I ought to be doing things outside Wikimedia projects. Therefore I bring this problem to colleagues' attention, in the hope that one of you may be able to help. Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy link: :c:Category:MAS Museum aan de stroom, although there are 83,167 images in :c:Category:Collections of the MAS Museum aan de stroom. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thankyou! The category now has now more than 87,700 files, as Mr.Nostalgic has added at least another 8,000 files since I posted my message. So far, I have found 25 mis-named files among them, and that's only those with names beginning with "A". I will not be able to search all the way from "B" to "Z" any time soon! Motacilla (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A suggestion: post links here of files of ships that need categorising, not forgetting to put a colon in front of the file name; e.g. :File:Baro Daiment, asset k2WaLYZHGOxjPOgEeQlxQ9Gi.tif so that other editors may assist in the process. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've been thinking. As there are so many images, it may be worth creating a dedicated sub-page (WP:SHIPS/MAS ?) where images needing further categorisation can be posted as mentioned above. Once they have been categorised, they can be struck through. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently some of these articles are titled as an escort ship Japanese escort ship Mikura and some just as escort Japanese escort Shimushu. I think we should have consistency, which is preferred? Lyndaship (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

: Escort ship, like landing ship and cargo ship, etc. Llammakey (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Japanese escort could be somewhat ambiguous! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That persuaded me. Moved all to Japanese escort ship Lyndaship (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved discussion to |1=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Identity of John C. Roberts–class DE in Battle off Samar photo (Moved from WP:SHIPS) |2=Better venue.  — sbb (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

In this [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Heermann_(DD-532)_and_USS_John_C._Butler_(DE-339)_lay_a_smoke_screen_during_the_Battle_off_Samar,_25_October_1944_(80-G-288885).jpg photo at Wikimedia Commons], the original caption from NHHC's files states,

{{blockquote|USS HERMAN (DD-532) and a destroyer-escort lay a smoke screen to protect their escort carrier group from attacking Japanese surface ships. During The Battle Off Samar, 25 October 1944. Photographed from WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66).}}

The Commons file name begins with "USS_Heermann_(DD_532)_and_USS_John_C._Butler_(DE-339)_ ...". It's likely the person who uploaded and named the file assumed the 2nd boat was USS John C. Butler rather than merely a John C. Butler–class ship as stated by NHHC's caption.

User:Micheal Harrens states Lundgren The World Wonder'd, p. 85, identifies it as Samuel B. Roberts, and has updated the caption at Commons. Are there other sources that identify the DE, or identify it differently? If it is Sammy B., we should rename the Commons file. But I'm not convinced a single recent (relatively) source, even Lundgren, is enough to definitively state more than what was in NHHC's original caption.  — sbb (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

: I would also take this to MILHIST. There are some people that watch there, that do not watch here that could help. Llammakey (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Good suggestion, thanks. Done, moved it.  — sbb (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Lundgren has, as far as I'm aware, only ever published through self-publishing outlets, so I wouldn't take the identity on his word alone. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We've got four destroyer escorts to choose from and I'm not seeing any immediate way for a clear identification to occur. It's possible that Lundgren (which source I do not have) is basing identification off Heermann being the ship whose course forced Roberts towards the Japanese fleet, but the smoke screens were set at 0700 and the incident in question at 0735, giving plenty of time for vessels to have changed positions. Heermann took position for the column of smoke screens behind Hoel and appears to have been at least near Roberts, but I'm not sure if there are any sources that provide more details on the makeup of the ad hoc smoke formation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth, while speaking of this stage of the battle, H.P. Willmott states on page 169 of [https://books.google.com/books?id=_jWSxLA5oCkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false The Battle of Leyte Gulf] that "the identity of ships on both sides is difficult to determine with any precision." Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth, looking at the photo, the sun is clearly coming from the left of the photo, and fairly low. That time of year in that location, the sun is rising from the ESE. That indicates that the viewpoint from White Plains (where the photo was taken) is southernly or southwesternly, and Heermann and the DE are heading to the right of the viewpoint, i.e., SW or westerly. This coincides with the turn to S/SW after the initial run east to launch all planes. But it still basically means nothing, because Heermann could have rejoined by this point with one of the remaining screening DEs.  — sbb (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Template:DANFS is looking very dated now, with an embedded link to Hazegray. More importantly, shouldn't it include a current link and archived link instead? It's not as if the Naval History and Heritage Command doesn't sometimes change its links. It broke every DANFS link on Wikipedia some years ago (many of which have still not been repaired) and there is nothing to stop them from doing it again. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Umm, there is no {{tq|embedded link to Hazegray}} in the {{tlx|DANFS}} template. I suspect that the Hazegray mention in the documentation is used as an example to show that {{tld|DANFS}} can accept two 'unrelated' urls.

:—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Sorry, misstatement. But the documentation does say users may use the parameters to link to the more recent DANFS article and the original DANFS article listed at Hazegray, which suggests that Hazegray is some sort of official site with the "original" documentation. Hazegray is a private site that evidently hasn't been updated for years, and there is no reason I can see why it should be used as a source for DANFS articles.

:: That is something of a quibble however, as it would only be a matter of updating the template documentation to remedy that. The real issue, as I have tried to point out, is that the DANFS template lacks an "archived" link and the kind of inbuilt output for it that other source templates have, ie, the output that goes something like "archived from the original on [date]". If the DANFS template was formatted that way, it would encourage or could perhaps even require an archived link, which would prevent future breakages if the NHHC moves all their content again. Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tlx|DANFS}} is an attribution template. If you want it to support {{para|archive-url}}, you could, perhaps, change it to emit the attribution statement followed by {{tlx|cite DANFS}} which does support {{para|archive-url}}:

::::File:PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. {{cite DANFS |title=Enterprise VII (CV-6) |url=https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/e/enterprise-cv-6-vii.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141102163307/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c13/constellation-i.htm |archive-date=2014-11-02 |link=off |accessdate=2016-09-15}}

:::Use {{tlx|DNB}} as an example of how you might implement this suggestion.

:::

:::But, for cases where {{tld|DANFS}} links to two legitimately different urls, the above suggestion will not work. Are there any instances of {{tld|DANFS}} where the second url isn't a backup of the first url?

:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox ship begin regarding how to standardize infoboxes. The thread is Ampersand standardization. The discussion is about the topic :MOS:&. Mbdfar (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I've motioned for Ioshima-class cruiser to be merged into Ning Hai-class cruiser as the articles cover the same ships, and poorly at that. The only diffrence is their operator and termanology. The two articles rely upon one another for either the ship's design, innitital history, or fate, which is pointless. The two cruisers of the class have articles which combine each service history into one page, so a seperate class article is pointless. I wanted to get consensus before I take this step. I'll make sure to rewrite the resulting article (GA, perhaps?) The main discussion is here, thanks! GGOTCC 06:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Baltimore Steam Packet Company for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)