Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 76#Marine Engineer

Does anyone have access to a copy of this? I'm interested to see if there's anything about the Ed Howard (also known as Howard or Edward Howard) beyond what is included already in the article for the warship it became, CSS General Polk. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

:The [https://ways.directory/?WayNumber=1702&img=on search] doesn't reveal any info. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Marine Engineering News was first published in April 1879. Covers mostly UK shipping, with some foreign. Useful for improving articles about ships of that era. I've added the first four volumes to WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific sources. More will be added later. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

: It appears to be the same as The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect, of which there is several volumes in the Internet Archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Our guidance for dabbing civil and military ships is different. For civilian ships it says {{tq|The date of launching should be used if there are several ships with the same name}}. For military ships it is further qualified with {{tq|In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation

}}. I feel that the civilian ship guidance should have a similar qualification when the ship is acquired and renamed. The existing guideline causes the resultant dates to be confusing as on MS Oscar Wilde where we have a ship launched in 1986 which served as Wilde between 2007 and 2019, another launched in 2007 which served as Wilde between 2023 and 2024 and now one launched in 2010 which serves as Wilde from 2024. Currently under the guidance they would be dabbed as 1986, 2007 and 2010 respectively whereas it would be better if they were dabbed 2007, 2023 and 2024 which gives an accurate idea of when they first served under that name. It also strikes me as strange that we should treat military ships and civil ships differently Lyndaship (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:The year of launch is the best dab, because that is fixed. Ships sometimes get renamed to a name they have carried before. If a ship was launched in 1976, renamed Foo in 1979, renamed Bar in 1982 and renamed Foo in 1987, which dab would you apply? This is why we use the year of launch. Where there are more than one ship of the same name launched in the same year, we can add the builder as a further disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

::Agree with Mjroots' logic. Weshmakui (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a merge discussion here: {{slink|Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy|Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add a disambiguation parenthetical for Outrigger to distinguish from the video game. Taking a look at :Category:Watercraft components, :Category:Sailboat components, :Category:Shipbuilding, and :Category:Naval architecture, it seems there are a number of options to choose from: (ship), (watercraft), (nautical), (naval architecture), (marine), (boating), (boat building), (ship building), (ship part), (ship construction), and potentially more that I missed.

In spirit of WP:BOLD I went ahead with (nautical), but I am leaving this comment here to document potential disambiguation... ambiguity? Tule-hog (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way that {{template|ship}} can be got to work for German battleship Scharnhorst? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:Does this not work for you?

::{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst}} → {{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst}}

:—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I was looking for something equivalent to {{ship|SS|Agamemnon|1865|2}} i.e. chop out the shortest version of the name without all the extra stuff in the article title. The fact that doesn't work (for me, at least) appears to be a function of the way the article is named. I'm just checking that I'm not missing something really obvious. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

::Wiil the following do what you want?

:::{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}} → {{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}}

::— Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)—

:::::I could have sworn I'd already tried that, but clearly I hadn't. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::YW Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello everybody. At one time, Palestinian security forces used the former fishing trawler Chandalahe for military purposes; Israel damaged it in 2002 and since then it has been abandoned off the coast of Gaza. I wanted to know what his current fate is? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:@Vyacheslav84 Does it even have a Wikipedia page? Alexysun (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::@Alexysun No. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Type 001, Type 002, Type 003 in terms of the Chinese aircraft carriers really a "class" of ships if they only have one ship per Type 001, Type 002, Type 003, and so on? Seems to me that it seems to be just a name for the ship before they choose an official name, because it's only one ship. There are not two Type 001s etc. Does my question make sense. Alexysun (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

: Yes your question does make sense. I would suggest the usual way of doing things; that is for single ship classes to have just one page like Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. That being said, Type 003 is not finished yet and could have multiple ships to that design. However for Type 001 and Type 002, the question is pertinent. Llammakey (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

::Okay got it, so it's good as it is right now. Alexysun (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged Draft:USS ambatukummers, which claims to be an article on a Freedom-class littoral combat ship for speedy deletion as a hoax.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Following yesterday's sinking, a new article has been created on the vessel involved - {{Ship||Bayesian|yacht|2}}. It needs improvement. Feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Would someone be able to rate/re-rate SS Aberdeen (1881), perhaps in the light of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Content_assessment#A_short_article_may_be_appropriate?

In case it needs declaring, yes I do have an interest in this article. I feel it is important as this is the first ship with a triple expansion engine that was commercially successful, so making steamships commercially competitive with sail on all routes. I think that the article is largely complete as all the notable points about the ship are covered.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:My pleasure. Kablammo (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::I have changed the rating from A to B, as A-class articles usually require a formal review process which I don't believe WP:SHIPS embraces anymore. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Infobox needs expansion (port of registry, identification). More detail could be given about the engine, [https://archive.org/details/HECROS1885/page/n102/mode/1up Lloyd's Register] is your friend. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Pre-dreadnought battleship 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. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on Talk:Omaha Beach#Pictures of ships involved in landings? I probably need some independent views on the matter after reading some sources with impassioned views about the British (largely naval) contribution to that part of D-Day being ignored, even denied, by some historians. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello all,

I have been working to re-do the entire SS United States article, and with her fate now likely sealed, I thought it would be fitting to have the article reviewed for GA status. I would appreciate other people reviewing the article as well, especially for readability and flow.

Thanks!

GGOTCC (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have the references to put together an article for SS (?MV) Prince Baudouin. Online I can find [https://www.derbysulzers.com/shipbaudouin.html] which suggests an interesting story. One point not clear to me is whether this ship became "HMS" during her war service. The IWM seem to think so [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010558], but not the marine interviewed at [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80020368].

Possible usable photo at [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205121733]. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

:Another online source[https://www.doverferryphotosforums.co.uk/mv-prince-baudouin-ii-past-and-present-2/]{{snd}}I have no idea if this is an RS, but gives a date of commissioning as HMS.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

::A usable photo from an RS[https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nara-series/USA-C/USA-C-1097.html] ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

:: I would think that HMS is probably right, but I don't have the more detailed standard RN books - she was registered under British flag 1941-46 in the name of the Ministry of War Transport, which may have been a prerequisite to commissioning in the RN. Certainly not "SS", as a diesel ship, though I would favour Prince Baudouin (ship) (can be "ship 1933" if the ealier one of 1872 ever gets an article).

:: There are a couple of published books that cover the Belgian Government ferries - Dover-Ostend Line (John Hendy, ISBN-13: 978-0951350652) and Railway Ships and Packet Ports (Richard Danielson, ISBN-13: 978-0906294642) - which should arrive here in a few days. I rather suspect that that Dover website, as well as the [http://recreatiepark.be/151/schepen/1934princebaudouin/PrinceBaudouin.html Belgian site] which covers the histories of all 60 vessels during the 151-year history of the Ostend service, would be considered self-published non-RS. But they are useful in pointing the way to acceptable sources. Also, there's an existing [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Baudouin_FL22712.jpg Commons photo]. - Davidships (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::: A good source: [https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/333957.pdf Un siècle d'évolution des paquebots, Ostende-Douvres (pp234-240), 1946]. Davidships (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Another source is [https://www.poheritage.com/Upload/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/95528PRINCE-BAUDOUIN-1934pdf.pdf P&O Heritage Factsheet - PRINCE BAUDOUIN (1934)] which gives a commissioning date as 8 November 1943 as an infantry assault vessel and lists her armament. She had been previously operated as a troopship, but not commissioned. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::One frustrating reference on this particular point is {{cite book |last1=Whitmarsh |first1=Andrew |title=D-Day Landing Craft: How 4,126 ‘Ugly and Unorthodox’ Allied Craft made the Normandy Landings Possible |date=2024 |publisher=The History Press |location=Cheltenham |isbn=978-1-80399-445-1}} which, from the index, has five mentions, plus six for the index entry, which are two HMS and four SS. From the primary source (above)[https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010558] it is clear that HMS is correct from the time the interviewee became a crew member, as he was ex-merchant navy and commissioned into RN under some special scheme, in his case because the navy was very short of expertise in marine diesel engines. (Should have been obvious to me from the outset!) This also confirms MV rather than SS.

::::*The primary source's account of the special route into the RN for him may be of interest to other related subjects.

:::::I have read somewhere (and cannot remember where) that these fast North Sea ferries were stripped of some of their upper-works on conversion to landing ships. That makes sense if they have to remain stable with the weight of landing craft on davits. Comparison of the commons photo and the Naval Heritage and History Command photo (above) seems to confirm that (but is WP:OR).
Thanks for all the assistance so far. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WT:MILHIST#The "legend" of S-5's conversation before rescue. It involves the potentially apocryphal story at USS S-5#Rescue. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Origin_landing_platform&redirect=no Blue Origin landing platform] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 8#Blue Origin landing platform}} until a consensus is reached. 64.229.88.34 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Can anybody help with an enquiry at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Leander ships? please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:Now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 September 7. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on the article {{SMS|Viper}}, a German gunboat that was eventually converted into a crane. The sources I have state she was in service until at least 1962, but no further details. Any commercial shipping people out there able to find anything after that? So far I've struck out, but this isn't my area of expertise. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Parsecboy}} - have you tried looking at the relevant editions of Lloyd's Register, linked from WP:SHIPS/R? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

I'm having difficulty finding Volume 5 of the Marine Engineer (Apr 1883-Mar 1884) online. It should be available, so if anyone can provide a link I would be grateful. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

:If all else fails, I will be visiting a library that has (all? or most) editions of the journal in November. if no one else responds, is there a specific piece you are looking for? GGOTCC (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

::{{Re|GGOTCC}} I was hoping for an url that is publicly available. The "Launches and Trial Trips" section is what I'm looking at. I've been working on the list of ship launches in 1883, but I have other sources available. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Dash&diff=prev&oldid=1247953053] to alter some text that inadvertently plagiarised the source. Describing the situation without copying turned out to be not as easy as one might first think as most of the sentence is the names of ships and there seems only one logical order in which to make the point. Hence using the precise terminology ("working up") of the source makes this look a lot worse. It has now been put back to the problem text with this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_Dash&diff=prev&oldid=1247956770] with an edit summary that I feel misses the point (it is whether Wikipedia plagiarises the source, not an individual editor). It seems excessive to involve an administrator in this, but I would appreciate an experienced editor taking a look.

I am posting here as the article talk page does not appear to be on many watch lists.

I have a busy day and don't know when I will be back on Wikipedia.
Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 5 § USS Dory (SS-352). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Flag of convenience has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in a bit of a bind here when looking at the Barracuda/Suffren class of submarines. In short, the design is called Barracuda-class by the manufacturer (Naval Group; they sold other Barracudas to the Netherlands) and Suffren-class by the French Navy. Is there a guideline of sorts as to how ship families should be named? I see for instance the Kilo-class submarines are just that, independent of their country of deployment, and same thing goes for the Agosta-class. But the category is a big mess so I'm quite unsure of the proper convention. Any input/advice is welcome. Superboilles (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

: Some related discussion from January: Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (ships)#More guidance for naming conventions for class articles. Tupsumato (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

::Very helpful, thanks a lot, and in fact exactly what I needed. Superboilles (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Some of it depends on the general consensus of sources (if there is one), and sometimes you have to make a judgement call. As an example, I had to deal with this several years ago in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading secondhand reports from people involved with the San Diego Maritime Museum that HMS Surprise (replica ship) is not actively sailing, that work is focused on static preservation on the ship and that after hauling it to a dock earlier this year the decision was made to not renew the ship's licensing with the Coast Guard as an active sailing ship; with no plans in the future to bring it back to sail. From what I understand, this allows the museum to focus on maintaining their other active ships while doing conservation work on the Surprise with a focus on static display.

However, all of these reports are secondhand via Reddit and other social media comments; and the museum has not made any official statements regarding the ship's long term plans. I am pretty unfamiliar with finding ship information, is there any sort of source like a registration record that can be used to confirm if the ship is active or not? The article as it stands is written as if the ship still is sailing regularly, but from what I can tell the only times it has moved in the last few years has been under tow to and from docks for repair work. It makes the article seem dated, but without a better source I really don't know how to approach fixing the article. I did put in a "citation needed" tag earlier today on one of the bigger claims the ship is actively sailing, but is just a band-aid solution. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have listed 11 short sub-templates that had previous been included only by the {{tl|Spruance class destroyer infobox ship characteristics}} infobox subtemplate — see the TfD at {{slink|Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 25|Single-use short sub-templates for Spruance-class destroyer infoboxes}}.  — sbb (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wreck of the Mexico#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two Wikidata pages for the Kolomna class of cargo steamships, built in Rostock in the 1950s. (Q1779579) links to the German Wikipedia article "Kolomna (Schiffstyp)". (Q25230999) links to the English article "{{sclass|Kolomna|cargo ship}}". I do not know how to fix this. I would be grateful if someone who knows how Wikidata works were to delete Q25230999 and link the English article to Q1779579 and the German article.

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:I believe {{u|Tagishsimon}} is an expert on Wikidata matters. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Launceston Castle states in the talk page header "This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale."!!! As the page is very much in existance, something is clearly wrong here, presumably associated with the articles recent move from HMS Launceston Castle (K397) to HMS Launceston Castle, but I cannot see why and how this can be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing that - it seems like normal to me? Maybe try refreshing the page and see if that fixes it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

::I just redid the stub entry on the bannershell. It should show up as stub now. Llammakey (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Bulk carrier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is anybody else getting a 503 error on history.navy.mil? It seems to have gone down yesterday, and it's still not back up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:Nevermind, I ask about it and then it comes back on. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

::The site always has issues, so this is routine. GGOTCC (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Pontian boat was a lashed-lug boat built in the 3rd to 5th century CE and discovered near the town of Pontian in southern Pahang, Malaysia by British archaeologist Ivor Evans in 1926. It is one of the earliest examples of boat-building in Southeast Asia.

• {{find sources|Pontian boat|Malaysia}}

It would be great if someone would create an article about it. Mathglot (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:Are you aware of the Viet Khe boat as per {{cite journal |last1=Bellwood |first1=Peter |last2=Cameron |first2=Judith |last3=Van Viet |first3=Nguyen |last4=Van Liem |first4=Bui |title=Ancient Boats, Boat Timbers, and Locked Mortise-and-Tenon Joints from Bronze/Iron-Age Northern Vietnam |journal=International Journal of Nautical Archaeology |date=March 2007 |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=2–20 |doi=10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00128.x}}? This is an expanded logboat with raised sides, using lashed lug construction and is dated 500 to 300 BCE. There are a growing number of archaeologically investigated boats in SE Asia, so any "earliest example" statements are always at risk of being or becoming wrong. The other expanded logboats in the same paper are also of interest, though not quite so old. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Mortise tenon joint hull trireme-en.svgs in trireme hull planking]]

This drawing of a portion of a trireme hull, showing the manner of joining hull planks together with mortise and tenon joints may have some issues. Currently under discussion, is how best to best describe exactly what the issues with the diagram are, as a prelude to raising this issue with the excellent folks over at the Graphics Lab, and giving them a clear textual description of what the illustration should depict or how it should be changed. A secondary issue exists regarding evolution of the plank joining method over time, and how to deal with that in an illustration. Your feedback at Talk:Ships of ancient Rome#Problem illustration would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

O'Brien-class destroyer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

== Suggested article splits from "Paddle steamer" ==

The paddle steamer article is pretty random, in more ways than one. One obvious issue with it, however, is IMO that there is too much material tangential to the topic. The two sections of concern are "Modern paddle steamers", and "Bangladesh" in the "History" section. The "modern paddle steamers" section is basically just a list of extant paddle steamers that adds nothing to the reader's understanding of paddle steamers, and looks quite out of place and WP:UNDUE. I am therefore proposing that it be moved to a new article with a name something like "List of extant paddle steamers".

The "Bangladesh" subsection of the "History" section also adds nothing of value given that the contribution of Bangladesh to the history of development or use of the paddlewheel lies somewhere between negligible and nonexistent. I therefore propose that it be moved to a new article named "Paddle steamers of Bangladesh" or something similar.

Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

: Sounds like a good plan. Llammakey (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Concur. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Agree. Kablammo (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:::: Should I just go ahead and do it then? Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Wow, yeah, that's a bit of a rough article. I'd say to go for it and post again here if you get pushback. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay guys, thanks for your input, I have created two new articles from split content, namely List of extant paddle steamers and Director-class tugboat. I know I didn't mention the latter, but in preparing the other splits I noticed these and since they were diesel tugs rather than steam vessels, they clearly didn't belong. As paddle tugs built in the late 1950s though, they are a quite novel type which would be fun to expand if anybody has more info on them.

With regard to the aforementioned Bangladesh split, I did not go ahead with that for the time being, because I'm considering relocating the content in some way to Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

: Bangladesh content moved to Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation per the above. Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd like to update the Queen Elizabeth Class Displacement in the infobox from 65,000 tonnes which is the empty displacement as confirmed here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf

To Est. 80,6000 full load which is stated in Jane's Fighting Ships 2023-2024 p. 886.

This will allow a better comparison between other aircraft carriers which use full load displacement (US Nimitz and Ford Classes and the French Charles de Gaulle as examples) SeaCeptor (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:I see no problem, provided it is clearly labelled Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks. @SWATJester Are you happy if I revise the displacement figures for the Queen Elizabeth Class now? SeaCeptor (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone identify [https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/180026893 this lifesaving appartus] (middle picture, bottom row) please? Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:Reminiscent, a little, of [https://legionmagazine.com/the-carley-float/ this design] of a Carley Float. A forerunner of an EPIRB (Emergency position-indicating radiobeacon). _ Broichmore (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::Not convinced it is a Carley Float, as that article states they were mainly used on warships. This was on a cargo liner, the {{MV|Éridan|1928|2}}. Far too early to be connected with EPIRBs. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hearn's The Capture of New Orleans refers to a Confederate vessel named the R. J. Breckinridge. John D. Winters, in The Civil War in Louisiana, refers to this vessel as simply the Breckinridge. Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion has General Breckinridge, as does Browning's Lincoln{{'}}s Trident. Gaines's Encyclopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks lists both names. I can find both names in the Official Records of the Union and Confederates Navies - [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924051367062&view=1up&seq=297&skin=2021&q1=breckinridge] and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_War_of_the_Rebellion/FSMH8fWif1cC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=css+general+breckinridge&pg=PA772&printsec=frontcover]. "General Breckinridge" would seem to be a reference to John C. Breckinridge, while "R. J. Breckinridge" would be Robert Jefferson Breckinridge Jr. or Robert Jefferson Breckinridge if I had to guess. Can anyone find something that would shed some light on what this ship was actually named? Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Hog Farm}} I'd go with {{ship|Confederate ship|R. J. Breckinridge}}. It was common for names to be shortened. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So years ago, at a content review somewhere, I had been told that it is part of the MOS not to proceed the name of an invidual ship with "the". So, for instance, "the battleship Bismarck" would be okay, but "the Bismarck" wouldn't. Is this actually a part of the MOS somewhere? I'm having trouble finding it if it is. This has come up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/CSS General Earl Van Dorn/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 22:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:I found it Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Using_ship_names_in_articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:: This has been contentious. It is up to the article's author and is not part of the MOS. However, according to WP:NC-SHIPS, you should not start an article with the definite article "the" and the use of "the" before a ship's name is not preferred, but not outlawed. Llammakey (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Unless the ship's name starts with "The" of course. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Marlin-class submarine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In 2010, User:Theoprakt changed Dry cargo ship from a stub article into a redirect to Bulk carrier. I am not convinced that this is correct, as Breakbulk cargo ships are also dry cargo ships. Last week, therefore, I changed the article from a redirect to a one-sentence statement. However, User:JalenBarks almost immediately reverted it, citing WP:NOTDICTIONARY as a reason. If "dry cargo ship" is a synonym for "bulk carrier", it is news to me. Please may we have an intelligent article on dry cargo ships, instead of a redirect that, I contend, is a misdirection? Motacilla (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:We have one - cargo ship! Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Both USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) and the just announced USS George W. Bush (CVN-83) should have their hull numbers included in the article titles as dabs, as they are essentially identical. For the articles that still retain the hull numbers, this is the reason why. - wolf 09:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

: I'm not going into hull numbers debate, but I do want to point out that by that logic George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush should have disambiguators as well. Llammakey (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have (41st U.S. president) and (43rd U.S. president) added to their titles, but that's just a suggestion, any dabs would have to be sorted out on a page related to them. Meanwhile, we're fortunate that the ships that are the point of this discussion, already have handy dabs built right into their names, that being their hull numbers, just like we see being used on thousands of other ship articles. - \\'cLf 03:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::: You could similarly argue that the two ships already are disambiguated by their names - the additional H. does the same job as adding the hull number.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed, and I doubt anyone reading carelessly enough to miss the "H" will know what "CVN-number" means. Disambiguators are used for two topics with the same name, not for similar names. This is exactly why we have {{tl|distinguish}} and {{tl|about}} (which, incidentally, is used on the two namesake presidents' articles). As to the rest of TWC's arguments, no, we've been through this a million times before, hull numbers are not part of a ship's name, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Parsecboy (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::When I first read TWCs post I missed the extra H and thought Oh they've named a second carrier after Bush and it was only on reflection I thought that can't be right and I realised the difference. I can appreciate the difficulty for someone who's not familiar with American politics or is not a native English speaker or whose first alphabet is Cyrillic, Arabic or Chinese in noticing this. Would you recognise the significance of an extra squiggle in an arabic title? So although the consensus is long established not to dab, in this instance as it does no harm I think we should Lyndaship (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Would the average Russian, Arabic, or Mandarin speaker immediately identify the difference between "CVN-77" and "CVN-83"? And moreover, would they grasp the difference any better than just having the "H" to differentiate the articles? Cases like you describe are much better handled with hatnotes, which actually explain what differences are (unless we want to dab the articles as USS George H. W. Bush (Nimitz-class aircraft carrier) and USS George W. Bush (Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier)). But now we're back to the reason why hull/pennant numbers are generally bad ideas to use as disambiguators in the first place; they only mean anything to people who already know what they mean (in other words, the only people who they help avoid confusion aren't confused in the first place). The general reader, they're gibberish. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{ec}} Sorry, disagree. The names are different and don't need disambiguation. What could be done is add a "not to be confused with" template at the top of each article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thats a fair point Parsecboy although I feel that numerals are more easily recognised than letters. As hull numbers frequently appear in media reporting and in pictures which might make general readers want to see more about the ship they have just seen on the tv I feel they have value in the article title. Just expressing my opinion and if the consensus is a hatnote is sufficient in this that's ok by me Lyndaship (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree that a hatnote is the proper solution. The average person knows that George W. Bush is different from George H.W., on the account that both have been presidents of the United States, the most memorable person in the world. Most folks have no idea what a CVN is. I do, but I am of course am a boat nerd, so I don't represent the average person :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Just throwing my hat into the ring, but I favor the solution I added a few days ago which is the hatnote reading, "For the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, see USS George W. Bush/For the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, see USS George H.W. Bush"

:::::::

:::::::I did this as any disimbiguation page between the two would take the name "USS George Bush", which I felt was pointless as there were only two very similar ships. Also, I did not feel the need to move any pages around as adding the hull number would violate Wiki:NC-Ships, and I think it is not needed with the hatnote.

:::::::GGOTCC (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}I don't think disambiguation is needed, as they are different ship names, and agree with GGOTCC's actions to hatnote both in case people click on the other one from the one they intended. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

: On a slightly related note which I brought up also on the article talk page, should there be a space between "H." and "W." as per namesake? Tupsumato (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::This isn't a dab problem, it's a Template:Distinguish problem. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::No, the US Navy recognizes the name as George H.W. Bush (for some reason). GGOTCC (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Any objections to the List of Victory ships and the various Lists of Liberty ships (e.g. List of Liberty ships (A-F)) being rewritten into a format similar to the List of Fort ships, List of Ocean ships, List of Park ships and the various lists of Empire ships (e.g. List of Empire ships (A))? Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:Go for it! GGOTCC (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::Mitchell & Sawyer's books ordered. {{smiley}} Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I've made a start on ships beginning with A. Still working on them. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently, this project has about ~57 21 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{tl|sfn}} and {{tl|harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{tl|cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{tl|citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

;To do

{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|

1. SS Maui

}}

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::Updated, 21 remaining. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

: A good chunk of these appear to be created by the now-indeffed User:DeltaSquad833, who had an "interesting" approach to referencing articles (with some articles citing info that wasn't supported by the sources and some wandering into copyvio territory). Considering the number of articles the user created (over 1200 according to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/DeltaSquad833]) - it may need a larger scale clean up operation.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Oh, and there's a CCI as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Good catch, but definitelively above my pay grade. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::There are some that are not showing sfn/harv errors like Sidney-class ferry, SS Uhenfels, and SS Otsego. Llammakey (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If so, then they've been taken care of. It's also possible they were in cached in the category for a while and recently got purged from it. Though here it looks like Nigel Ish took care of at least two of those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not the right place to put this (please let me know if I should be posting elserwhere).

I have noted that there seems to be some inconsistency across French ship pages with the terms DCAN, DCNS, DCN & Naval (also non French ship pages which use a shipyard co name which is inconsistent with the period it was constructed.

My understanding is the correct term should be based on the period the ship was built so as an example any ship built before 2007 should not be using a term (DCNS) which only come into being in 2007.

At the moment I am just rasing these as I come across them in the Talk section but I am not neccessarily getting any traction

I am happy to change them but do not want to fall foul of some process I am not aware of that relates to shipyard naming. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

: Correct place. The problem lies with the sources which made every ship constructed by that company DCAN, DCN or Naval based on the time of publication. Llammakey (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::Understood, thank you. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback would be welcome at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes#DIY combo table-infobox for ship article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Briefly reading about this ship, which collided with the Tampa Bay Sunshine Skyway Bridge in 1980 as MV Summit Venture, after listening to the distress call made during that incident.

The ship's page here states that following the incident it returned to service, was eventually renamed Jian Mao 9, and that it sank in 2010. It includes the following statement with an appropriate citation from Shipwreck Log:

"It sank off the Vietnamese coast in 2010 under the name of Jian Mao 9; all 26 crew members on board were rescued by container ship Nyk Aquarius. The events that led to it sinking were never made public."

This information is corroborated by releases on TradeWinds and Lloyd's List, but another result I found on PILShip.com, the website of Pacific International Lines, states that the sinking was due to flooding of the holds and also that the crew of Jian Mao 9 informed the crew of the rescuing vessel that a 27th crew member was unaccounted for - who was then rescued by a PIL ship, Kota Nelayan:

https://www2.pilship.com/en-successful-rescue-of-a-chinese-seaman-at-sea-by-kota-nelayan/132.html?year=2010&n=69

The PILShip report came two months after the other reports I mentioned, which were all published in early November 2010 - the TradeWinds report was "updated 27 June 2012 8:20 GMT," but the full text is behind a paywall. Would someone more familiar with the subject matter, and maybe access to the full TradeWinds article, be able to verify/update the page if that info can be confirmed? one🍪cookie 15:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, {{u|One cookie}}, for drawing attention to this. I have added what I can on the loss, based on what is openly available - but not the Tradewinds (apart from the fragment not firewalled) or Lloyd's List, so if those articles can be accessed, there may be more to include.

:On the article's "main course", I think that a more extended and balanced description of the bridge allision is needed - I've left a note about this at Talk:MV Summit Venture. - Davidships (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:HMS Victory#List of Admirals who have hoisted their flag... that could probably benefit from some extra attention. (fyi) - \\'cԼF 00:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I have several questions relating to Builders

I noted when visiting these pages today that placenames should not be used after the builder in the info box - assume it's OK for me to delete as I come across them.

Noted than many ship Info boxes exclude a great deal of information which is listed in the 'Ships Table' is this to prevent double up or should the Ship Info box be populated with all the available information. Personally, I find the Info box very helpful to get key information without scrolling down the page

Is it the rule in Ship Tables not to repeat hyperlinks (for example if a Builder is represented several times then only hyperlink it once

Does the rule for the Builder in the ship table differ from that in the Info Box - i.e. in the Table you should list the location after the builder?

I have noted that in the Ship Info box I run into problems with formatting - refer the attached as an example. I have checked other ship pages and the text aligns but for me if something goes across a line it indents on the next line

French seaplane carrier Foudre - Wikipedia Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

: To my knowledge, we do not have a policy to omit builder's location from the infobox; just recommendation to avoid excessive detail. In my opinion, it is relevant information. Also, what's a "ships table"? If you refer to a table that lists the ships in the class (such as here), in my opinion it is good practice to link the first instance of the builder as in the article body. Of course, if all ships in class are built at the same shipyard, the whole column can be omitted as trivial. Tupsumato (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response - correct I did mean the list of ships - I just moted that in some instances the hyperlinks were being repeated but on other pages they are not. It does seem overkill to keep duplicating the link. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

: On infobox place names I think that should be up to contributing editors to consider what is useful. Sometimes the shipyard name indicates the place, but where not I think that it is more useful when the shipyard itself does not have an article to link. - Davidships (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks David - I have noted yesterday on one the WP Ships pages that Ship Info boxes should not contain placenames (as it clutters the ship info box). However, I would assume from reviewing other ship related pages that is normal for placenames, next to the builder in the List of ships tables. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:::There should be no hard and fast rule one way or the other; a lot depends on context. It doesn't make a lot of sense to list a ship's builder as Regio Cantiere di Castellammare di Stabia, Castellammare di Stabia, for example. But when a given company had yards in multiple locations, the location obviously makes sense, for example, AG Vulcan, Stettin, vs AG Vulcan, Hamburg. The usage guide advises to generally leave out the builder's location, but a single location may be useful (i.e., just the city, not the state/province/etc., country). Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thankyou Parsecboy,

::::I believe we are aligned to me placenames are irrelevant as part of a top level summary, however as I commented here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allen_M._Sumner-class_destroyer to me, the actual shipyards themselves are very important and dont appear as much as much as they should do whether in Ship Info or Ship Tables. I quite like how this has been dealt with (have seen quite a few US Ships pages like this), I will review the guidance notes first as I would like to do this going forward.

::::Especially relevant in current times when everything is being swallowed up a few large multi nationals, take Fincantieri as an example who manage multiple 'historical' shipyards. Lǐshìmǎn (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Question for the project. {{u|PLAASR}} has been adding images of awards to US military ship articles ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_George_H._W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=1273313777 example]). These edits make up the large majority of their changes since registering a bit over a week ago.

I don't have an objection to including information about awards in the article prose, but these additions are as far as I've seen unsourced and are presented as bare images without any context for non-military readers. As a project, is this a practice we want to see? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 08:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:No, this is pretty clearly a MOS:DECOR issue. Awards should be discussed in prose, where they can be explained and placed in context. The average reader has no clue what those little pictures mean. Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: Agree with Parsecboy. Furthermore, on ships that operated with multiple nations it puts undue emphasis on American service. Llammakey (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: If the awards are notable, they can be added in the prose, with appropriate references to reliable sources. Addition of medal ribbons as bare images, without sourcing or explaination, is meaningless to the reader whether they are familiar with naval issues or not.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm. This does appear to be part of a larger problem we have. For example, {{sectionlink|Chester W. Nimitz|Decorations and awards}} has a similar list of awards. William Halsey Jr. has it even worse, with both awards and the insignias for every rank he held (starting at ensign!). I did a random sample of ten articles in :Category:United States Navy World War II admirals, and all but one (the GA William R. Purnell) had decorative awards. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Yo|The ed17}} Whoa, calm down. This separate issue is suddenly now a "problem", which needs to be mixed in with the particlar, (and separate), issue of this editor's additons? You exclaim the Halsey bio "{{tq|...has a similar list of awards...}}" (omigawd... ) "{{tq|even worse, with both awards and the insignias for every rank he held (starting at ensign!)}}" - Noo!! Really? Why that's just... wait, wut? What exactly is the problem here? Are the ranks/dates not sourced? Are they not explained, or at least labelled? Are there images that are somehow prohibited being used? Just what is the concern here, and why such alarm? - \\'cLf 18:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wolf, please don't try and sensationalise what was a perfectly staid conversation. If you choose to look at the Halsey article yourself you can answer your own questions. The dates for the ranks are not sourced. They are provided in their own section which we don't usually do anymore. Images are not prohibited from being used. You're a very experienced editor and inputs like this are just not constructive. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Observations that could easily apply to the previous comment as well, but just the same, thank you for you're "staid" and always neutral reactions to my edits. Have a great day. - \\'cLf 23:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Disagree. "Always neutral reactions" - have I ever even interacted with you before? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::We've gone around and around on these ribbon farms on military bios for years. I'll note that Audie Murphy, an FA, doesn't have one (and the related FA Audie Murphy honors and awards doesn't either). There are 540 military bio FAs; I wonder how many of them have ribbon farms. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::While I agree, maybe the ribbon farms topic overall should be discussed at WP:MILHIST. On WP:SHIPS, no one has spoken for their inclusion yet. Llammakey (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that there should probably be a discussion at MILHIST (and I know there's been at least a few over there in the past), I mainly mentioned it to point out that it's a broader issue than just ships.

:::::PLAASR is still adding the sections to articles, despite having been asked by Ed to join this discussion twice. I've since warned them that if they continue to ignore the discussion, they may be blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Update: they ignored this latest request to participate in the discussion, so I've blocked them for 24 hours. Hopefully this will push them in the right direction. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

: I agree that these medal racks are graphic cruft. I thought we had agreed ages ago not to include them on ship articles. I see PLAASR is still adding them despite Parsecboy's further post on his talk page. Is it time to block them? Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I was going to revert these edits as, even without the lack of discussion, they all appear to be unsourced. A good half of the user's 1,000 edits are these images, however, so I thought I'd mention it here first. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Upon the block expiring, even though they were explicitly told to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PLAASR&diff=prev&oldid=1274457923], they have continued just as before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Wilhoite&diff=prev&oldid=1274526983]. I have indef pblocked from articlespace until clue improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that there appears no arguments in favor of their edits, I've gone through and reverted them all (though I may have missed one or two if anyone wants to double check). Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! GGOTCC (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This get posted to wt:milhist? - \\'cLf 23:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:No, as I've been beset with off-wiki things. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: they have created User:Ugaria, which I have indeffed. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they are back User:2600:1700:c3a0:6d30:5069:2c49:338d:af97 Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked the /64, and converted the block on PLASSR to full indef due to the socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::User:2600:1700:C3A0:6D3F:CDA8:582A:8F0A:4AC3 was outside the range, but has also been blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In the project's shipwreck lists (ex: List of shipwrecks in 2024) a highly space and information inefficient layout is used. Every date has a separate table and heading, and all the information is behind a niche template which makes it more difficult to edit. My proposal is that these lists be simplified, in the style of the other ship events by year lists. All the individual days would be condensed such that each month has a header and standard wikitable (so it would look more like List of ship launches in 2024, but with multiple tables). This would reduce the length of the lists, improve readability, and would be more presentable. Making the changes would be tedious, but if there is community consensus that it would be beneficial I am happy to start working on it. Fritzmann (message me) 22:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I did actually make a mock-up for this year's list at my sandbox so you can compare the length and let me know your thoughts on the redesign. Fritzmann (message me) 22:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Oppose. I find the list of ship launches to be a messy table, not a list, and does not improve readability whatsoever. Too much bolding. There are too many repetitive links. It also makes it incredibly hard to find a single shipwreck on a date, especially when there are 40–50 ships sunk on a specific day, such as those during World War II. Not an improvement. Llammakey (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Very Strong Oppose - the issue of many ships being lost during WWI and WWII has been dealt with by splitting the year lists into month lists. There are hundreds of lists of shipwrecks covering from before Anno Domini to the present. I can't see a gain by converting text to tables. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The {{HMS|Belgol}} article has been nominated for deletion. Please do not move the article while discussion is ongoing. Feel free to comment at the AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project is taking place at Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)#class type?. - \\'cԼF 11:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I have put a {{template|better source needed}} on [http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/destroyers_before_1900.htm "Destroyers Before 1918"] in HMS Paragon (1913).
Is this source as bad as I think it is, and does anyone have anything better for this article? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|ThoughtIdRetired}} I imagine all of the info from that URL could probably be sourced from the relevant Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's not a source to which I have access. This is me editing outside my normal time period. I tend to focus on anything from early prehistory up to the 17th century at the moment, with just the occasional departure such as this one. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Through the magic of the internet archive, I have checked Conways All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 and there is a very brief account of the careers of this class. The current article content is a misreading of that information, it appears. I will have a proper look at this in the cold light of dawn. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships page, why is the section dedicated to the group's contributions to DYK feature one fact from seven years ago and a discussion about said fact? I also believe it would be more benificial to make the wikilink to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Did you know? more obvious.

Is anyone else in favor of a brief restructuring of the segment? GGOTCC (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed the comment because that's not meant to be a talk page. Agree it's strange to have such an outdated section. I think I'm used to MILHIST where the lists are updated by a bot; I didn't realise that here the list of FAs has to be updated manually, and I'm not sure when it last was. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I will copy over the current page into my sandbox to experiment with a better way to update the FA/DYK/other lists automatically. GGOTCC (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Said page is here: User:GGOTCC/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships

:::Feel free to make any edits you see fit, everyone! GGOTCC (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

When there is a ship class with just one ship, do I correctly assume that we prefer just one article located at the ship's name? (Assuming no other reasons for a ship class article, such as a number of cancelled ships etc.) A relevant talk page message is currently at WT:MILHIST#Article merge. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

: In my opinion, you do assume correctly. Generally a separate class article would be justified if there originally were plans to build a class of ships instead of just a single hull in which case the ship article could focus on the career of the sole built ship while background, development, technical details etc. could be covered in the class article. There are, of course, special cases such as long-running projects where only one ship may have been planned but the project itself has become notable enough over the years to have a separate article. Tupsumato (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Agree with the rationale for preferring a single article. But there may be content which points towards the class article being preferred - it would depend on notability and sourcing. In either case there would be of course be appropriate redirects. - Davidships (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

On 28 February 2025, Editor CatFan2 made this edit to {{USS|John Finn}} without edit summary. I reverted with an edit summary noting that the article was {{tq|better before}}. The editor also made similar edits to other {{sclass|Arleigh Burke|destroyer|1}} articles. I reverted all of those that are on my watchlist.

On 1 March 2025, Editor CatFan2 reverted my revert with the edit summary:

:{{tq|More detailed information is located in the first sentence and is useful to anyone who is trying to find information about the certain ship. Knowing the Flight of a Burke-class provides a lot of information from the get-go, so I believe it should be in the first sentence as a descriptor}}

After, Editor CatFan2's second revert (at {{USS|Forrest Sherman|DDG-98}}) I posted a note on their talk page ({{slink|User talk:CatFan2|Arleigh Burke-class ship leads}}) noting WP:BRD and suggesting that they start a discussion somewhere common to all of the articles that I had reverted and linked to this discussion page. Editor CatFan2 then asked that I start this discussion.

Editor CatFan2: Have I described the history of our interaction correctly?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:While the overall flow was better before, the Flights of a Burke are pretty significant and should probably be mentioned in the lede. The number of the ship in class ("63rd" et. al.) shouldn't be though, that's merely trivia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for creating this discussion here, as I'm quite new to editing.

:I believe that having the Flight variant in the first sentence, or at least in the first paragraph, is quite helpful due to there being large differences between the Flight variants. I noticed when browsing through Burke-class articles that many of them didn't even include the Flight version or had them in differing places within the article, so I standardized the first sentence of each Burke-class article. I apologize for not consulting this area first, as what I did was a big edit across all ships. I'd be more than happy to personally go through the articles and implement changes if a consensus is reached here. Cheers CatFan2 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:

:Taking USS John Finn (permalink) as an example, the first sentence markup is:

::USS John Finn (DDG-113) is the 63rd Arleigh Burke-class (Flight IIA Restart) Aegis guided missile destroyer in service with the United States Navy.

:::USS John Finn (DDG-113) is the 63rd Arleigh Burke-class (Flight IIA Restart) Aegis guided missile destroyer in service with the United States Navy.

:

:The purpose of an article lead is to summarize the important parts of the article; not to introduce new detail. See MOS:LEAD and MOS:INTRO {{lang|la|et seq.}} in particular relating to details. A string of ten blue-linked words in the first sentence violates WP:SEAOFBLUE. I agree that 'is the 63rd' is trivia. Nowhere else in the article body is 'Aegis' mentioned; nowhere else in the article body is 'Flight IIA Restart' mentioned. §Design does say that 'John Finn will be a Flight IIA ship' which suggests that the article could do with more of an overhaul than a WP:SEAOFBLUE first sentence. And my last little niggle: '-class' is not to be italicized.

:—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::...the fact that the article doesn't seem to mention Aegis at all raises my eyebrow for sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::Where should the Flight variant and Aegis be mentioned? In the John Finn article, it can easily be put into the 'design' section, but many of the Burke articles don't have that section, meaning that a complete revamp and reconstruction of many articles may be necessary. CatFan2 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The term 'Flight IIA Restart' does not appear to be explicitly defined anywhere in en.wiki though I presume it is vaguely defined at Arleigh Burke-class destroyer § Production restarted. It appears that this version of John Finn has 'design' text that has seen relatively few changes in the dozen-or-so years since it was written. That text appears to have been added to the article as filler until something more concrete about John Finn could be written. The link to the Arleigh Burke-class article is sufficient to replace most or all of the §Design section in the article. The article USS John Finn should be about John Finn, not about the Arleigh Burke class.

:::

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3A%22good+article%22+hastemplate%3A%22Infobox+ship+begin%22+prefix%3AUSS&ns0=1 This search] finds about 180 GA-class ship articles where the title has the USS ship prefix. Spend some time studying those articles to see how they are written. Apply what you learn to the Arleigh Burke-class articles.

:::—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Many of these articles have a link to the ship's class article under the 'Design' header, see USS Massachusetts, and also include a lengthy design section even though a better, more detailed one can be found in the ship's class article, see South Dakota-class. You advise having a smaller design section, and I agree that that would be sufficient in most cases, but the GA-class articles don't have those, and have rather large design sections even when linking to a larger one for the entire class. I'm a tad bit lost on the best way forward CatFan2 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The way to think of is this: ship articles should prioritize coverage of that ship's service history and have a sort summary of the technical details (and any significant differences from the other members of the class), while class articles should be the reverse: summaries of the ships' service histories and more focused on the design history, context of the ships, and tech specs. In the examples you linked, the design section of USS Massachusetts (BB-59) is significantly shorter than the South Dakota-class battleship (1939). The class article provides some 10 paragraphs on the context and design history of the class, compared to 1 for the ship article. And technical details are covered in 15 or so paragraphs in the class article, compared to 5 for the ship article (and of which, 2 are on modifications specific to that ship). Conversely, the class article has 6 paragraphs of Massachussets{{'}}s service history, compared to 24 in the ship article. That's the general structure you want to use when writing ship articles. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

: As Trappist notes, the purpose of the lede is to summarise the article. There shouldn't really be anything there that isn't in the body of the article - if there is, then the article really needs rewriting to fix this. Much of what is in the lede probably doesn't belong there, and certainly shouldn't be in the first sentence (and there are things that aren't in the lede that should be summarised there - like the ship's service history). Similarly the infobox should be used to summarise information that is already in the article, not as its sole location. The article body should be expanded to include this information (and perhaps the opportunity taken to trim the infobox - an infobox that is longer than the rest of the article isn't really helpful - for one, it messes up image placement. These problems do not seem to be unique to this article but appear to be common to most of the ships of the class.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree with many of the concerns noted by Ttm above. That said, would it not be useful to have the flight noted in the infobox, since there are only four flights for ≈100 ships? Perhaps Aegis should be noted there as well, since it applies to all the ships. - \\'cԼF 17:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The thing is that the 'Flights' of Arleigh Burke class destroyres probably would have been, in the past, counted as seperate classes (much the same way a lot of modern aircraft are, say, "F-16C Block 60" when in the past there would have been a new suffix letter). They're that different. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I could see them listed as sub-classes, then or now, considering the differences among the flights, but as it stands now, we have the flights, (just as the Navy does), so like I said, wouldn't there be some benefit to noting that in the infobox? And really, I'm not sure why Aegis hasn't been included in the infobox since the beginning. - \\'cԼF 23:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Could 'Aegis' be put into the "Class and Type" section of the infobox? Possibly the Flight as well? A small section in each article may need to be added which expounds upon the Flight and Aegis, but it sounds like a possible start in the right direction. CatFan2 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::

:::::::I would think that to show the flight in the infobox one might do this:

::::::::{{Infobox ship characteristics

| Hide header =

| Header caption =

| Ship class = {{sclass|Arleigh Burke|destroyer}}

}}

|-

! Subclass

| Flight IIA

{{Infobox ship characteristics

| Hide header = yes

...

}}

:::::::As for Aegis, that's part of the ship's armament so perhaps a modification to the various armament templates in {{cl|Arleigh Burke-class destroyer infobox templates}}. Both of those things should be mentioned and sourced in the article body.

:::::::—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:This discussion appears to have petered out, Editor CatFan2 has been absent from en.wiki since 4 March 2025. Without objection, I shall attempt to restore the Arleigh Burke-class ship articles and perhaps add flight info to the infoboxen as I described above.

:—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::My apologies. Life has been rather hectic as of late and this matter escaped my mind. I'll go to the USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) and implement some changes. Could you then look at it and see if the changes look good? CatFan2 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help me on this? There was confusion between this ship and Tavistock which was renamed Albany in 1747. I've used the information from Colledge to change the erroneous redirect but now I think Colledge is wrong and I don't have Winfield to check. There's even more potential for confusion as there was another Tavistock in 1747 and both Albany's had the same Captain! Lyndaship (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Added some detail on her capture. - Davidships (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Lyndaship}} Do you mean both Tavistocks had the same captain? The only crossover I'm seeing is Justinian Nutt. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Told you I was confused! Looking again I think I was looking at a wrong page and Captains were all different Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Lyndaship}} Having noticed the red link for him I've gone and created Nutt's article...so something did come of this! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the disputed tag now on Crab claw sail. It is discussed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crab_claw_sail#Disputed].

Much of this subject matter is to do with ethnography of sail types. What I am short of are RSs that use this term with respect to modern sailing craft.

Comment is sought, however, on all aspects of the article.

I have also posted this on the talk page at WP:SAIL

Thanks ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've asked over at WT:MILHIST as the the reliability of the Historical RFA website. Please comment over there. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Please let me know if this isn't the right place, I'm new to wikipedia. I made my first draft at Draft:Northern Wave of a steamship. If anyone has the time to give it a quick look-over and provide any advice or tips I'd be super appreciative. Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Sock-the-guy}} - everything is referenced, which is good. Article would benefit from the addition of an infobox ({{tl|infobox ship begin}} - don't worry about the merge notices, select "commercial vessels" under Usage). A description section would also be of benefit. See {{MV|Éridan|1928}} for an example of what to include there. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::This is super helpful, thank you! Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athena (yacht) I'm ambivalent about this one. Thought I'd pass it along for other opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps more importantly, this of the same date: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion (yacht) - Davidships (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ferry Fiasco (Scotland)#Requested move 21 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed that User:Nafis Fuad Ayon has been going around adding/changing the ship type in Template:Infobox ship characteristics for VLS-equipped submarines to "Nuclear-powered attack submarine with VLS-launched cruise missile capability". This would be "going overboard" (per Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide#Infobox_ship_characteristics), right?

I would also not that Nafis Fuad Ayon was really intent on creating an article for this sort of thing (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VLS-equipped_multipurpose_attack_submarine) so this sort of reclassification may be extending to other articles. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: A section for such subs was added to Attack submarine after the article creation ran into trouble. Not sure whether this "fabricated distinction" (as it was put in the AFD) requires such prominence in that article, or its own (orphaned) category (:Category:VLS-equipped attack submarines) for that matter. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that this counts as being way too detailed. Maybe guided missile attack submarine would be a better category, as VLS is very oddly specific. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I thought we'd shut that down with the AFD? If not then Nafis Fuad Ayon' edits need to be reverted Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I thought the same thing. I'm also not convinced that we need guided missile attack submarine, either. And as far as I'm concerned this highlights one of the many problems with Wikipedia's reliance on categories instead of things like tags, but that's a different conversation. Intothatdarkness 13:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's less the reliance on categories and some people determined to push things that don't exist. SSGNs exist and are classified as such. "Guided missile attack submarines" do not (and every attack submarine can fire guided missiles, Harpoon comes in containers that fit torpedo tubes). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I get an admin to watch this new user's activities? He's been making changes to the pre-war Japanese aircraft carrier articles, most of which are at FA, without citing them properly. I've reverted him once already and am about to do it again because he ignored my request to take things to the talk pages as per BRD. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like he's starting to revert his changes, which is a good sign. I'd still like an admin to be overwatching things in case they get contentious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Now I think that he's blown 3RR on Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not quite 3RR, but definitely EW. Warned and protected the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)