Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Triple TfD nom

I nominated {{Bainbridge class cruiser}}, {{Long Beach class cruiser}}, and {{Truxtun class cruiser}} for deletion. Nomination is here. Brad (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Previously alluded to here, just for info... bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, why don't we merge the class pages into the ship articles? Individual ships don't typically have class articles, unless there were other members cancelled before completion (see for instance HMS Hood (51) and Admiral class battlecruiser). There's no reason for the class articles in these cases. Parsecboy (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the merges but I thought there was a lot of disagreement in doing so. I found these three templates because I was looking through ship articles needing references and each of the articles don't have any. Brad (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless there were actually plans to build more than one of these ships, there's no need for separate class article in addition to the ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep the templates, though, with some editing to delete references to the class articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Isabella

Hello, I'm looking to start a page on the slave ship Isabella, a British ship responsible for moving slaves in the 17th century. I've already made the page a stub (called The Isabella) but I need some help expanding it. Thanks so much 5hane2012 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)5hane20125hane2012 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If the ship's name was not The Isabella, I would recommend naming the article e.g. "Isabella (slave ship)". Tupsumato (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the ship sailed for over 141 years (1684-1825) as the article says. —Diiscool (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not sailed for 141 years, but in existence for that amount of time. HMS Nile (1839) lasted until 1956, HMS Wellesley (1815) lasted until 1940, and of course HMS Victory, built in 1759, is still with us. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Direct use of the military navigation template vs. using a succession box

It would be great if interested editors could comment at Talk:USS Wichita (CA-45)#Succession box. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

SS Buresk (1914)

I recently created the article SS Buresk (1914) for a ship that was sunk during World War I. I have also found that a ship under construction that was being built and was launched in 1914 after the loss of the Buresk. Originally known as Burford and launched in 1914 she was renamed Buresk and was sunk by German submarine U-38 in 1915. Any suggestions for naming to avoid confusion between the two? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have to go with an SS Buresk (1914a) and SS Buresk (1914b) unless you can figure out any other way to dab them. Were each of them laid down, completed and in service all in 1914? Brad (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Buresk sunk in 1914 was launched on 25 March 1914 and the Buresk sunk in 1915 was launched on 10 September 1914. I was thinking could Buresk II (1914) be appropriate? Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about "sunk 1914" and "sunk 1915" ? or "(formerly Burford)" ...

If doing it numerically, then the first should be SS Buresk I (1914) and the second SS Buresk II (1914), with SS Buresk (1914) a disambiguation link.

70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless they are specificly referred to as Buresk I and/or Buresk II, I'd avoid using 'diambiguating content' such as that outside the brackets. -- saberwyn 07:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If they have different builders, dab by builder - SS Buresk (Foo, 1914) / SS Buresk (Bar, 1914). If both were built by the same builder, dab by month of launch. SS Buresk (1914) would the become a shipindex page, like SS Harmodius (1919). Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If they had different roles/classifications, that might be a nice way to disambiguate too, since that's an obviously descriptive term. SS Buresk (Collier) versus SS Buresk (armed hovercraft tug) or whatever. No? bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am leaning towards SS Buresk (sunk 1914) and SS Buresk (sunk 1915) as they were built by the same shipbuilder. SS Buresk (1914) would the become a shipindex page Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for SS Buresk (March 1914) and SS Buresk (October 1914) in that case. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Are they both notable? If the second (either/both) fails GNG etc then there's not much point in an article when the non-notable one belongs as a line in List of xxxxx line ships or List of ships built by xxxxxx. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting question...

...although they're only 34 feet (10 m) long, are Texas' new armed Rio Grande patrol boats para/military enough to fall within our scope? [1] And, even if not, are they notable enough for an article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that they are possibly outside our scope, but would come under WP:MILHIST. Subject to meeting WP:GNG, they should be notable enough for a class article, maybe individual boat articles too. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And away it goes! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice start, but SS Bushranger is still a red link . Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll get around to that one of these days! Life is busy, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

French ship Courageux (1751)

Should French ship Courageux (1751) be French ship Courageux (1753)? Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to its launch date it should be 1753. An occasional problem arises since there were so many French vs English captures. You need to make sure Courageux (1753) doesn't overlap with a British ship of the same name or even another French ship of the same name. Brad (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I have moved page to French ship Courageux (1753). Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD notification

It may interest the project that Atlanship SA has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Another AfD

Alfa Nero has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Meets "100/100" likely-to-be-notable standard ? Please stop using the project scope as a notability standard. This is really getting annoying. Brad (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use it as a notability standard. I said that it indicates it's likely to be notable - which it is. That the project scope happens to match a logical is-likely-to-be-notable criteria, that has evolved from it, perhaps, but is now a seperate creature, is neither here nor there. Over the course of AfDs the 100/100 has been used, and been accepted by consensus through the AfD results, as an indicator that ships above that line are likely to be notable, in the same sense that flag/general officers are assumed to be likely to be notable. While it, as I mentioned, might have started out as a misapplication of the project scope, it's now an independent thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You insinuated as much. The scope was not assembled as a notability guideline in any way, shape or form. Only which articles fall under the scope of the project. Ship articles are subject to the GNG just like any other article. Where exactly was this "independent thing" discussed and agreed upon? Brad (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Over the course of lots of AfDs where it's been used as a - successful - argument for keep? Hence my using it. If it's a big deal, I won't in the future, but it seems to be de facto accepted by many. (Also, I never stated or implied that they weren't subject to the GNG, and honestly don't appreciate the insinuation that I did.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SHIPS/AFD for our AfD record. I agree with Bushranger that a ship that meets 100/100 is deemed to fall within the scope of this project, and is likely to be able to meet WP:GNG and thus be capable of sustaining a stand-alone article. To have such an article, GNG still needs to be satisfied by WP:V via WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Western Pipe and Steel Company

A dispute has arisen at Talk:Western Pipe and Steel Company regarding the most appropriate way to refer to the Roosevelt administration. More opinions would be appreciated. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Constitution 2012 Lottery

The 2012 lottery for the July 4th turnaround event is open. Winners (and one guest) get to "sail" on Constitution during the event. Information here. Brad (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bulk Carrier

A template has been left on this article asking for expert clarification. Although hidden in the template the reason given is Full hulls? Hull curvature? Why are they more efficient? "cross-section typical of most merchant ships"? More info, please, either here or in other articles with links.... This is currently a Good article of reasonable importance so it would be great if someone here was knowledgeable enough to answer the editors concerns. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

HDMY Dannebrog (A540)

In view of the policy of not inventing prefixes, should this article not be at KDM Dannebrog (A540), rather than the KDM version being a redirect? (KDM stands for Kongelige Danske Marine.) I note that HMDS is used widely at Wiikipedia (eg HDMS Najaden (1811)) - but doesn't Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships say "For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article."? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes we have translated titles, but for editors to translate something which looks like a standardised acronym seems pretty inappropriate to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Danish Wikipedia doesn't seem to use any prefix at all, anywhere, and it strikes me that HDMS or HDMY may be an entirely invented prefix, like FS (French Ship) or IJN. The Danish Navy website doesn't use any prefixes either, although the English Wikipedia article Royal Danish Navy proclaims "Danish Navy ships carry the prefix KDM (Kongelige Danske Marine) in Danish, but this is translated to HDMS (Her / His Danish Majesty's Ship) in English" - but of course Kongelige Danske Marine translates as "Royal Danish Navy", not "His Danish Majesty's Ship". Sounds fishy to me. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Combat Fleets 1998–99 refers to Danish ship names as been prefixed by HDMS.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen HDMS used in the wild, so it is not a pet Wikipedia thing. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but you also see IJN & FS in the wild, and we don't use those either - because they're made up. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At what point does WP:MADEUP/WP:NEO become WP:COMMONNAME, though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

They are not WP:MADEUP as Wikipedia defines such things. And certainly not WP:NEO, since they've been used for a long time. Reliable sources use HDMS and IJN. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

At what point should Wikipedia stop perpetuating common errors? - to put it another way. Before you know it, people will start quoting Wikipedia to prove that Danish ship names are preceded by HDMS, whatever the Danes think! 79.77.226.51 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

HDMS is an approximate translation of KDM modeled on the English style as used by the RN. I've seen much the same thing done for Dutch and Norwegian ships in English-language works. KDM literally means, IINM, Royal Danish Ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I think you are mistaken. The Danish word Marine means "Navy", not "ship". "Ship" would be skib, or possibly krigsskib, orlogsskib or orlogsfartøj. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Danish military use HDMS in their English language publications (page 2). It's not a "common error", it's English. Manxruler (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Which all goes to illustrate my original point; both HDMS and IJN are widely used in reliable sources and "are English", but Wikipedia (through Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships) deprecates IJN while accepting HDMS (and HDMY, which is certainly WP:NEO). At best, the modern Danish ships are known in English as HDMS, but the same was never true of 19th and 18th century ships like HDMS Najaden (1796) and HDMS Lougen (1805) - making the use a neologism. I'm suggesting that Wikipedia should follow the highest standards, not be content to meet the lowest common denominator. Thus it is not acceptable to pull out isolated usage of HDMS and say "it's common usage". The question is not "is it acceptable", but "is it right"? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree...but a lot of the people who have been renaming articles to "standardsed" capitalisations on song and album titles, as opposed to what it actually says on the label, would disagree... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the modern useage (of HDMS) is probably legitimate - the acronym is used in reliable sources and may have its routes in NATO - like other "NATOisms" like RDAF ( Royal Danish Air Force) for the Flyvevåbnet. Of course - use for pre-20th century ships seems rediculous.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I made a ship index for this title (HDMS Dannebrog), it's at AFC pending review -- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HDMS Dannebrog -- 70.24.251.71 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

70.24.251.71, I'm sorry to be negative, but this AFC demonstrates everything that's wrong with using the "HMDS" - none of these ships ever used the prefix, with the possible exception of the current royal yacht, and that's at HDMY Dannebrog (A540). The proposed ship index "HDMS Dannebrog" links to Danish ironclad Dannebrog, and all of the others pre-date not only the "HDMS" term, but the widespread use of prefixes, and indeed even the widespread use of acronyms. It is therefore not only historically illiterate, but also misleading in a subtle and dangerous way. As you can tell, I'm not in favour! The article would sit better at Danish ship Dannebrog, with links to Danish ship Dannebrog (1850) and so on - in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point of set indices, which are navigationally helpful pages. It doesn't matter if they are anachronistic, it only matters that these ships are also called that. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh yes, anachronisms matter, at least on Wikipedia -- WP:SHIPNAME says "do not use prefixes that predate their use, even though some authors sometimes "backdate" prefixes in this way". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's for articles on the ships though, this is just a navigation page. The HMS shipindices similarly list ships that predate HMS, or are properly RFA. Similarly for USS, and listing USNS ships... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Only the wrong HMS ship indices show HMS for ships that pre-date the term. Correct examples are at HMS Swiftsure and HMS Revenge, to name just a couple. I am horrified, however, at just how many wrong ones are out there. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

HMS E41 contradicts itself

The account of the collision of HMS E4 and HMS E41 in the E41 article, as well asbeing unsourced, is contradictory as to the number of crewmen who escaped from the submerged submarine. Can someone with access to decent sources on this incident have a look?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Sixteen were killed, fifteen survived. Of those fifteen, seven escaped after E41 sank: the six under the conning tower, and the C.P.O. from the engine room. Granted, it's not worded very clearly. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Students from California Maritime Academy

We have a bunch of students from the California Maritime Academy coming up through the Wikipedia hawsepipe ... let's give them a welcome from WikiProject ships! Here's their class assignment page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Information_Fluency Djembayz (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well deck/Well dock: Third party eyes needed

Ever since I added the traditional meaning to "Well deck" an individual has been oppoesed, split the article (which I did not wholly think a terrible idea) to a separate "Well dock" for the modern military usage and is now in a revert campaign against edits I've made with in line illustrations of structures to help readers without much nautical background understand. I'm not going to get into a revert war there, but some neutral and "ship experienced" eyes would be useful to perhaps improve the definition. Should both definitions be under one term (rejoin with sections) as the modern did evolve from the traditional (as I try to illustrate)? Are the illustrations useful? Palmeira (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The images do provide useful illustration, but DexDor (talk · contribs) is right that the way you are using them is non-standard and in quite a few cases contravenes the relevant manual of styles for images, captions, page layout, etc. Benea (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Style over substance? For someone, perhaps never having seen a ship in the "iron" or "wood" much less walking the decks, trying to visualize the evolution of a well deck as on an old 1910 steamer or naval ship to an enclosed, floodable compartment for swimming amphibious vehicles to dock one picture is worth a lot of words. An encyclopedia informs the uninformed. If larger illustrations do that I say that works. Every encyclopedia, even large dictionaries, I know has used illustrations to show what would take a lot of words and still perhaps leave a novice confused. I suppose one solution would be to get very wordy and then suggest associated thumbnails wrapped in that very expanded text for opening. Palmeira (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of no images or images done your way. You are welcome to put images in and there are several in both articles, so I'm not sure why you are claiming that people are unable to understand it without images. The use of these images is governed by relevant manuals of style (WP:MOSIMAGE, WP:MOSCAPTION, WP:LAYOUT, etc). Which means unforced image sizes, placed inline with the text, staggered left and right according to preference, with succinct captions which do not need to include the picture credits. By all means get wordy. Part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is that readers should be capable of understanding the topic without images at all. Benea (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"By all means get wordy" and "I'm not sure why you are claiming that people are unable to understand it without images"–Getting wordy makes no sense in what is essentially a dictionary or glossary entry for someone reading some piece of substance. For example, wondering what that "well deck" that reportedly had ice on it after Titanic hit the berg might be should be a quick click to a short, very clear (perhaps illustrated) clarification and back to reading a real entry. The ships that marked the evolution, the LSD as an example, probably warrant an "article" while the naval architectural feature probably does not, though I suppose someone could research every variant, every flooding and trim mechanism and every door and do a naval architecture feature. I think the reader wanting to know what a "well dock" is has been ill served by having to open thumbnails rather than having an example under a sentence or two showing it went from something conceivably related to a traditional well deck open to the elements to something inside the ship and that more words would not help that quick look and return to a main article one bit. Here is an instance in which Wiki "policy" is in my opinion counterproductive for readers, though it may satisfy "writers" here. It reminds me of the wry chuckles I get at something that really is a four line definition with a "Stub" flag. Some things are stubs. Palmeira (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

USS Bon Homme Richard

Do you agree that the Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) needs a longer article? Jonathan is me (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (although it's not tagged as such) it's a DANFS reguritation at present. WP:SOFIXIT. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Newbie question

Sorry, I'm very unfamiliar with sips, but I wondered how I should refer in prose to this fighting ship, and to where I should direct the red-link, if one is warranted. Thanks! (talkbacks appreciated but not necessary) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian ship Lesnoe (1718) would be the redlink. As to how you would refer to her, that would depend on the context. Benea (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "In 1720, Bering took command of the Lesnoe, ..." Would that be right? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ships in country category

I removed a number of irrelevant articles, including a some ship articles form Category:Philippines. Another editor disagreed and undid my edits. To have the ship articles is a country category goes completely against the guidelines at WP:CAT. I will attempt to remove them but I have no stomach for an edit war. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the rationale on your talk page--and you will get an edit "war" if you persist. The USC&GS ships Pathfinder, Marinduque, Fathomer, Romblon and Research played a very important role in the development and culture of the islands during the American colonial period. The Pathfinder was the only one of the group not actually owned by the island government, financed by local taxes. The Research was the first C&GS survey ship in the islands. Of considerable cultural significance is the fact these ships were crewed by Filipinos and transported shore parties for the survey and mapping of the islands as well as the hydrographic surveys. They performed "diplomatic" functions in numerous visits to island indigenous centers, carried mail, rushed medical supplies to communities hit by storm or disease and otherwise were an integral part of the islands' commercial and government functioning. An ulterior motive for the category is to try to interest Philippine nationals now that have access to records within the islands dealing with those activities and crews. Most are now stubs that can be expanded to more fully reflect that key role in Philippine island history, including the loss of several between 8 December 1941 and the fall of Corregidor due to enemy action. Please stop the removal of a very valid category. Palmeira (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As a note for others to consider, I reviewed subcategories of the Category:Philippines such as history, transportation and such. Though each applied, no one subcategory fully fit. If all applicable were inserted then the list would be fairly long as history, transportation, communications, science and technology, economy even health and education would apply. If the consensus is that "Philippines" is not proper then I will suggest that very long list. I also see the person removing the category has inserted flags, including one indicating "this article lends undue weight to certain ideas" without any clue as to what is objectionable in cited material (poorly cited as I've not had time to turn years old general cites specific). Palmeira (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Ships of the Philippines+Category:History of the Philippines be appropriate? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ships of the Philippines would be ok but not Category:History of the Philippines. The latter is enough of a mess already with out a few more odd articles. "History of ..." categories should be kept for history overview articles (and we are now getting plenty of them. The ships are better of being mentioned in History of the Philippines (1898–1946) or in a Maritime history of the Philippines article. The latter can then be in Category:History of the Philippines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, the influence and role of these particular ships extends well beyond "ships" and the nautical. The "articles" have long been stubs but in the course of other projects I am finding material that does not fit my primary interest and can add information here showing a solid role in the history of the Philippines and in science there with weather, magnetism, even cultural observations. They played a role in local society as seen in "Attending a native wedding outside of Zamboanga. Wives and officers off the PATHFINDER" by representing "Manila" to outlying islands. When Research was bought and provided funding originating in the islands modern maps of the islands barely existed. Scientific positioning of the islands did not exist until triangulation parties from these ships established relative positions and tied the islands together; to a point there were complaints in some states that the Philippines (partly because of local funding and support of those ships) were better mapped than parts of the Continental United States. The ships were so important locally that when Congress cut national funding some provincial governments provided funding and coaling. Those bits are just a shallow sampling of the actual role of those ships in the islands from 1901-1941. We have one individual crusading against a useful finding key linking that history and significance for any reader interested in the islands and their history. It is a handy overall key, though all the others I mention are justified; certainly as the ship's histories are filled out. I am much more interested in the reader's ability to find such information in connection with Philippine queries than this person's "style" issues. If others here want to take a cut at refining the finding tools, fine with me. I will continue adding such finding tools if I bother to continue making notes of incidental information that might fit here. Palmeira (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• • It's not one person's "style issues"; it's consensus and the MoS. Top-level country categories should, ideally, be container categories, containh nothing other than the article about the country, and subcategories - all articles (aside from that of the country itself) should be diffused into subcategories, as otherwise either the top category will get hopelessly clogged, or its few contents will be "orphaned" and lost as people looking for them click through subcats, not checking the overcat as it should be (essentially) empty. As these ships were, in fact, involved in the history of the Philppines, either Category:History of the Philippines or Category:American colonial period of the Philippines would be logical for them, but having them in Category:Philippines is undesiable, confusing, and does not aid in either finding the articles or related articles - thus defeating the purpose of categorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It should be remembered that categories are not really for determining what is more important - that is up to the reader to decide. Categories are for grouping topics of a similar subject. BTW Bushranger, the country categories are not quite a true container category. There are three or four articles that are deserving of being in them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• • What is your basis for adding the "undue weight" tag to USC&GS Fathomer (1904)? Certainly seems completely unjustified even though the old cites put in by the originator have not been converted to specific in-line citations. It and the other Philippine owned C&GS ships certainly need a lot of work, but "undue weight"? You did not even bother to leave a hint on the talk page. Palmeira (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok Bushranger, that makes some sense though it does not quite address the multiple subcategories as finding tools that should apply to the filled out pieces about these ships. I am going to remove the country category and place the Category:Ships of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey in the Philippines as a subcategory in Category:Philippines. At least at the moment that seems preferable to putting the ships into every subcategory a completed piece would fit and still help those interested in reading general material about the islands find the ships. Later, if I or others fill out their roles in science, transportation and such the shift to specific subcategories might be more desirable and then the ship category could move out of the country. My point is that these are not "just ship" pieces if I and (I hope) people with access to Philippine records add material. They would become much more about their role in the island's early 20th Century life. I will be away for a time so time to assemble the notes falling out of other lines of interest for these ships will be on hold. Palmeira (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's insane to suggest that these ship articles belong in Category:Philippines. By the same token HMS Victory would belong in Category:United Kingdom. 79.75.91.72 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"The" before a ship's name

Can someone finally settle this issue once and for all? Is it proper to say "the Port Royal" or just "Port Royal"? I heard or read it somewhere that it isn't proper to say or write the word "the" before a ship's name. If it is not correct, then many pages need to be corrected, including USS Port Royal (CG-73). Allen (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, using 'the' is bad form for British and Commonwealth warships. The prefix is implied if not said, resulting in you saying "The Ark Royal" but meaning "The Her Majesty's Ship Ark Royal". As for other ships, I don't think there's much of a ruling as to the presence or absence of "the"; for Wikipedia purposes, as long as its internally consistent within an article, its fine. -- saberwyn 05:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no real 'official' guideline on it, but afaik we don't tend to use it. I've used it for "The USS Enterprise" or "The RMS Titanic", but never for "the Titanic" etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Saberwyn has it about right. Per WP:MOSSHIP, it is allowable to call a ship "the shipname", but just calling a ship "shipname" is also equally acceptable. Thus its basically down to the writer's preference. Being lazy and liking to cut down typing as far as possible, I merely refer to ships by name. If a ship is called "The Foo, then it wouldn't make sense calling it "the The Foo", would it? Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have usually used "the" in front of ship names in the articles I have written, but I might be moving away from that in near future. My spellchecker usually points out such usage as an error with a note "...except if XXX is a ship...". I guess either way is good, but how should we react when an editor goes through ship articles and either adds or removes articles in front of ship names? Same approach as with British/American English? Tupsumato (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. If the writer of an article uses one method, there should not be an undiscussed alteration to the other form. Treating it as WP:BRD would seem sensible. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. To be totally honest, I find it distasteful and even disrespectful. It doesn't sound good at all. Allen (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't use it - I treat ship names like peoples' names, and there's only one doofus I know who uses the definite article for himself. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That was funny. Seriously, though: I think a bot should be made that will go through articles and remove "the" before ships' names. The prefixes "USS", "USNS", "USCGC", "HMS", etc. will be easy. If the "prefix" is not used, then that's a whole 'nother animal there. Allen (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I went though my article list and, based on that experience, I'd vote against the bot. You can't simply just replace the '' with '' and except it to work without manually checking each article. Well, perhaps the navy prefixes would be okay. Also, as long as it's in the guidelines, we shouldn't do anything. Perhaps we could update the manual of style of our project? I have some other suggestions for the wording as well. Tupsumato (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A ship has a name just like we all do. Few would agree that I'm "The Brad" or that there's a The Tupsumato and The Allen. 'the' before a proper name just doesn't make sense. Brad (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I opened a discussion regarding the slight change of WP:SHIPS guidelines regarding ship naming here. Please comment if you're for or against such change. Tupsumato (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Brad, you make lots of sense. I am going to take a look at the above link. Allen (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You can find numerous examples of the before ship's names in primary and secondary sources, including marine-trade sources that should know usage. You can also find examples to the contrary. The is redundant before HMS, and some similar prefixes. Modern style for naval ships seems to strongly favor not using the, but I'm a lot less sure about merchant ships. I strongly object to any assertion that the is incorrect or disrespectful in the latter context, though an argument could perhaps be made that it it is falling out of use in some kinds of writing. Dankarl (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Brad's comment, I think that is precisely why colloquial American English uses the - it makes it instantly clear you are talking about a ship and not a person. Dankarl (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick check of Google News articles using various American aircraft carriers discloses that they usually say "the USS Famous Person". I also note that the USN and USCG stylebooks disagree on this point: the navy says "no 'the'", the coast guard says "use 'the'". I think it makes sense to make a specific statement about the UK/commonwealth case, but for American ships we have conflicting authorities. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While not "RS", my experience around military experts who know this kind of thing points to using the "the" as the mark of an amateur (i.e. the kind of person for whom anything bigger than a rowboat is a 'battleship'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the navy does tend to think of coast guard cutters as equivalent to rowboats. Looking back further shows a great deal of inconsistency; for example, I can find David Taylor himself referring to CV 5 as "USS Yorktown" and "the USS Yorktown". Also, back when I worked for the navy as a civvie in a lab, there was a great show made of referring to the accommodations for the elimination of bodily wastes as the "head" rather than any of the terms ordinarily used for such rooms. Sailors (in the broad sense) are proud of speaking a different vocabulary, and while it is useful to distinguish a halyard from a sheet, the use of naval terminology (and milspeak in general) for subcultural identification shouldn't constrain our usage. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Having a look at books to hand (the vast majority dealing with UK and Commonwealth navies) it is very clear that while "the HMS shipname" is not used (the grammatical reason is obvious), "the shipname" is used:

• N. A. M. Rodger, "... only two small cruisers, the Pelican and the Janet," (The Command of the Ocean, p. 144).
• N. A. M. Rodger, "...on the rebuilding of the Bull and Tiger among other things..." (The Safeguard of the Sea, p. 336).
• Paul Kennedy, "...a large number of them, including the Royal George, simply foundered. (The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, p. 110).
• Arthur L. Herman, "... he had seen twenty-two men die of it during the Eagle's blockading patrols, and twenty-nine on the Pembroke..." (To Rule the Waves, p. 301).
• Peter Padfield, "... her shot did more damage to the Bon Homme Richard than to the Serapis. (Maritime Supremacy and the Opening of the Western Mind, p. 248).
• Leonard Guttridge, "Led by the Hood, the Atlantic Fleet finally put to sea." (Mutiny: A History of Naval Insurrection, p. 200).
• Christopher M. Bell & Bruce A. Elleman, "On the Provence, the mutineers took control of several dozen guns..." (Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century, p. 118).
• Jean Hood, "...the Koffie Boom and her cargo were sold at auction..." (Come Hell and High Water, p. 118).
• Roy and Lesley Adkins, "On the Defence in 1794..." (Jack Tar, p. 132).
• David Cordingly, "There they boarded the Rose, a merchant ship of 300 tons..." (Cochrane the Dauntless, p. 268).

And historically it has been used as well

• Edward Dummer (Navy Board official, c. 1650s) "[it seemed]... a mighty boldness to advance with the Grand Fleet further westward of the Isle of Wight than the [Royal] Sovereign had been known to have been..." (quoted in Rodger, Command of the Ocean, p. 144).

I've just gone along part of the top shelf behind me (within easy reach) opening books at random. Every single book had an example and I've listed it above. Academic usage makes no proscription against "the shipname", it uses it when it is grammatically correct to do so. It is in fact colloquial usage to omit it when it would be grammatically correct to include it. Grammatically speaking, I find that when the ship is the subject of the sentence, the definite article can be omitted ("Somerset is one of a clutch of Type 23 frigates"), when it is the object it can make more sense to include it ("The dockyard had recently begun to refit the Somerset's radar array", "Commander Smith served on board the Somerset between March and April). This appears to conform to academic usage (for example, Jan Morris's Fisher's Face has on the same page "...in the Warrior he introduced the order 'still'" and "Donegal was his first ship...", and Brian Lavery's Churchill Goes to War, "Renown had settled into a routine..." and "The Renown's idyll ended..."). As Mangoe hints at, Bushranger's military experts may be guilty of adopting a particular style in order to differentiate themselves as the 'experts', and those that aren't aware of their linguistic rules, as the 'amateurs'. Benea (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Some examples from sources who can hardly be called amateurs:

• Alaska and the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service, 1867-1915 Truman R. Strobridge, Dennis L. Noble, Naval Institute Press 1999

"After a two-week Layover the Thetis slowly retraced her course back to Nome" p70

"At the time of the Bear's visit, four other US Revenue Cutter service cutters - The Corwin, Grant, Perry, and Rush - lay at anchor in Unalaska, as well as a British warship, the HMS Pheasant." p164

"The cuttermen were able to locate the Cleveland even in the heavy snow squalls." p125

• The Coast Guard expands, 1865-1915: new roles, new frontiers Irving H. King, Naval Institute Press 1996

"Two months later the Bear, followed closely by the Thetis, found Greely and six other men near Cape Sabine in terrible condition." p84

• Cochran, C.S. (1915). "Report of northern cruise, Coast Guard cutter Bear". Annual report of the United States Coast Guard. Washington: Government Printing Office.

"At Emmatown it was learned the Taimyr had called there and neither vessel had been to Wrangell but that the Vaigatch had been to Herald Island and within 10 miles of Wrangell but unable to land on account of heavy ice." p82

• NOAA
  • "Recent NOAA ship travels have included: the RONALD H. BROWN completing an around the world cruise this past year; the McARTHUR sailing the length of the West Coast and then throughout the eastern tropical Pacific; the FERREL working in coastal waters ranging from New England to the central Gulf of Mexico; the MILLER FREEMAN traversing areas from the Aleutian Islands to San Francisco while conducting fisheries studies; and the KA'IMIMOANA cruising the seas of the equatorial Pacific helping monitor El Nino/La Nina events." Dankarl (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Coming a little late here, but I'd concur with Dankarl, I think - both are valid, and in some circumstances they can even be used together without seeming odd! I don't think we should formally discourage it, except in the specific cases of "the HMS" and the like, and we certainly shouldn't be automatically converting from one to the other. Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We have naming conventions for ship article titles, but we are far too formal in other areas. Why, for example, the name Sinking of the RMS Titanic, when Sinking of the Titanic (now a redirect) would serve as well? It is more natural. Similarly, we do not need to add "USS" or "HMS" or "RMS" to every place a name appears in the body of the article. The context normally is clear. Read a published account of a ship or battle and see how often those initials are used in the text. Kablammo (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cape class maintenance ship - help requested

I've cut back Cape class maintenance ship to a infobox and two sentence stub, because it was a virtual verbatim copy of [2]. Howver, as the Capes appear to be Head class maintenance ships built in Canada for the RN in WW2 and purchased by Canada in 1952, shouldn't the article be moved to Head class and the (at least) three RN ships which weren't sold (i.e. HMS Rame Head, HMS Ducansby Head and HMS Berry Head) added? In addition, Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II suggests that the Ness-class, Mull-class and Point-class were also vertually the same. Should they also be bundled in? Any Royal Navy maintenance ship experts?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, this should be a section of the yet-to-be-written Fort ship article. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone class coastal patrol ship heating up again

I think this needs some work to adjust the per-ship articles to match the recall to duty for the 2012 War on Iran. Hcobb (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't make edits based on non-existent events. See WP:CRYSTAL. Removing Iran from the equation, what exactly is it that you are asking for, and what is your reliable source for it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wired: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/tiny-warships-iran-assault/

and AOLes: http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/cno-downplays-gulf-tensions-even-as-navy-sends-more-ships-call/

So at the moment I need to figure out which ships are getting recalled and refitted and update their articles. So it would be helpful to have the assistance of a fan of the class who would have weightier sources. Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Jane's databases available at my local uni. No mentions of the Cyclones, but I found a brief article on the Avenger class minehunters (also mentioned in the Wired article). No names named there, but the article states that the news of the Avenger deployments occurred at a Senate Armed Services Committee budget hearing on 15 March... investigating that may reveal further leads on the Cyclones for you. -- saberwyn 01:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What use could we make of the UK's National Maritime Museum archives?

I've been talking to the National Maritime Museum in London (as some of you might know). They are interested to know what use we could make of the material in their archive catalogue. If we could get a bunch of Wikipedians to turn up, request bits of archival material, probably scan/digitise it (copyright allowing, but most of it is quite old), as well as look up the secondary sources in their library and go and look at / take photos of stuff in their collections - what would people be interested in getting hold of and what use would we make of it? NB I'm hoping for a more specific answer than "we want ALL OF IT and we'll use it EVERYWHERE" ;-) - I am looking for some concrete examples from you guys to go back to them with. :D Many thanks for your help! The Land (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting – a detail from "Chart of the River Thames from London to the Nore, Margate and the Downs, North, Middle and South Channels, from a survey taken in 1789 and 90", could illustrate, and give detailed information for, the article at Reculver: a hi-res square mile (ok, square nautical mile!) centred on the church towers at Reculver could be very interesting! The image used to be viewable in fairly close-up detail in the museum's online store, but not any more. Thanks and fingers crossed. Nortonius (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Also, I wonder if they might have a copy of Bruijn, R.J. (1979), Dutch-Asiatic Shipping in the 17th and 18th Centuries: Outward-Bound Voyages from the Netherlands to Asia and the Cape (1595-1794) (2 vols.), Nijhoff, ISBN 9789024722709 – for any mention of the VOC ship Meermin (1759–1766: there was only one VOC ship with that name in that period). This book is a translation of a Dutch edition, if they only have it in Dutch that would do fine. Thanks in advance. Nortonius (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, really helpful and specific examples! I'll pass them on, and if anyone else thinks of more, I'll pass those on too! The Land (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah good, I'm glad that's the sort of thing you were after! I can add some other things, though I think two of them are definitely long shots, but who knows:

• HNLMS Gelderland, seized by the Nazis in 1940 and re-named Niobe by them, sunk in 1944: the ship's plans would be good, just maybe they were acquired through war? Otherwise anything in the records or library: I've no idea how they'd archive things like that...
• Meermin again (per citation of Bruijn, R.J. above): plans? Very unlikely, but...! And anything else besides the book I already mentioned.
• Model of a three-masted, 18th century Dutch hoeker? The Meermin was this type of ship: big enough to have a beakhead, but steered by tiller, that must've been hard work! Possible I suppose, if so some photos would be fab!
• Reculver again (per the 1st item above): it's adjacent to the Wantsum Channel (see below!), so any charts or maps up to the mid 19th century; also, the place is supposed to have been a base for the "Smuggling Preventive Service" before the creation of the Coastguard, who then took over at Reculver in the 19th century, any maps, plans and records for either or both services at Reculver would be good too!
• Wantsum Channel: not such a long shot, as it's a waterway between the Isle of Thanet and mainland Kent: anything and everything chart-like from the earliest available up to the 18th century. I'll add anything else if I think of it, and if I do I'll try to keep within the realms of the possible! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Help needed: 2 articles when ship sold to another country?

Help is needed at an RfC on whether 1 or 2 articles should be used in WP when a ship/boat is sold to another country. See Talk:PNS_Ghazi#Merge_USS_Diablo_.28SS-479.29_here. --15:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Derelict Aomori ghost ship

Does anyone know about the tsunami-swept-away fishing trawler from Japan that's drifting into Canadian waters? [3] It's apparently 50m long, so seems to be covered by WPSHIPS. 70.24.250.156 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Several of the articles say it is 50 feet but the pictures would seem to contradict that reporting. This article says 50 meters: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/23/bc-fishing-boat-tsunami-debris.html. —Diiscool (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Several others say that it's 150ft... This one [4] says it's 54m (so I guess this one isn't rounding things off) (50m ~= 50yd = 150ft) (1m ~= 3ft = 1yd) 70.49.124.162 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Better if you decided whether to discuss this (A) here or (B) at WPJ. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a Japanese trawler, so information about it is either available in Japanese (WPJ) or from nautical people (WPSHIPS)... I think it's about even as to which Wikipedia community might know about the vessel. (and less likely at WPFISHING, or WPCANADA) As I am asking about info on the ship, both seems to be places to ask. 70.49.124.162 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The length question can be easily solved by finding her IMO Number. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The ship is clearly around 50 metres (160 ft). I have been searching high and low since yesterday for the ship's name but all I can find is that the name is unknown. I am having trouble locating Senator Cantwell's press release as well as the Canadian notice to mariners that all of the news article keep citing. —Diiscool (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've created an article for this ship, Ryō Un Maru. There is wide, wide discrepancy of facts and figures among the myriad news articles but I've done the best I have energy for. Any help would be appreciated. —Diiscool (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

CfD notification

It may interest the project that Category:Ships sunk in 1915 is currently under discussion at CfD. The discussion is located here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to AWB users

Could someone running the AutoWikiBrowser go and rename all references to S.A. Agulhas and S.A. Agulhas II (with the exception of the notes about incorrect spelling on both articles) to S. A. Agulhas and S. A. Agulhas II, respectively. I could do it manually as well, but a small laptop without a mouse makes such repeated minor edits rather annoying and often results in errors. Thanks in advance. Tupsumato (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please make one edit for an example of what you want done. How many articles are there? Brad (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

More template fun

Somebody sure does love templates! Here are three that overlap:

Additionally, Vehicle cargo ship and Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off both include the Bob Hope class and the Watson class. So are they Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off ships or Vehicle cargo ships? Can't have both. Brad (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Should jut keep the by-class ones, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

About the articles, I don't see the problem. Aren't LMSRORO a category of vehicle cargo ship?

As for the templates, I would say that the LMSRORO template should be converted to just list ship classes.

70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

SS Esturia (1910)

Can anyone enlighten me to the fate of SS Esturia (1910), which was handed over to the Admiralty (RN) at Port Said, Egypt in mid 1917? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this the ship in question? If so, more details can be found in the pages linked from here. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would appear to be the ship I am after. Thank you Mjroots. Regards Newm30 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, so you'll be able to expand the infobox, add a description and career section, create redirect from alternative names, add links from the relevant list of ship launches and list of shipwrecks etc etc . WP:SHIPS/R is always available, may point to further sources that you can use. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Königsberg classes

Hi! You have two disambugation pages:

• Königsberg class light cruiser
• Königsberg class cruiser.

I think, the last one would be erased. --188.142.193.35 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the two at Königsberg class cruiser -- saberwyn 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to call it Königsberg class ? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment (as far as I can tell), there are no non-cruiser Königsberg ship classes. Broadening the disambiguation wouldn't have had much benefit for readers, and required more legwork in reaiming redirects and inbound links. -- saberwyn 09:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. All Königsberg classes were cruisers (And "Foo class bars" is the format the project uses for dabs anyway...we don't do "Foo class" articles, only "Foo class bars".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of a ship talk page

Probably too low level for a WP:ANI report (yet), but this hilarious and profanity-filled screed has popped up on Talk:RMS Empress of Ireland. I reverted the original as it was just incoherent insults, but it was reposted with an extended rant. I think the ip just doesn't like that someone has edited his contributions, I don't know whether to revert again or let it stand (it is on a talk page after all). But if someone wants to try to engage with him or at least get him to redact, feel free. He just about violated every Wikipedia:Etiquette rule going though. Benea (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, warned, suggested that they should repost in a civil manner if there is an issue. Case to banhammer unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Eleonora Maersk and Eleonora Mærsk

If someone has too much time in his hands, the former article should be merged to the latter, as it is the correct spelling of the ship's name. Tupsumato (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone give me another opinion on this?

I'm finally getting around to writing an article on xerotine siccative, a paint drying substance that caused an explosion on the HMS Doterel (1880) among other ships, and I learned of an explosion on the HMS Triumph (1870). This is curious to me because the article on that ship makes no mention of an explosion and the ship was in action for many years after the explosion, which would have occurred in 1881. The article that talks of the explosion on the Triumph mentions that the explosion occurred off Cequimbo [sic]. That is also the name of another ship which exploded as a result of Xerotine Siccative. The number of deaths exactly coincides with the deaths from the explosion of the Coquimbo. This all leads up to make me assume that the article is an error and the Triumph was reporting the incident on the Coquimbo. Still, the article that mentions the Triumph in no way indicates that it would've been on another ship. Albert Hastings Markham, the Triumph's captain, discontinued serving on the Triumph in 1882 which could coincide with an explosion in 1881. I really don't know what way to look at this, especially since there is no mention of it on the article of the Triumph. Can anyone offer some thoughts, or an opinion on how I should address it in my article? Thanks, Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have copies of Markham's service records. Following his command of Triumph he was "heavily censured [and would have been relieved of command if he hadn't been about to give up command anyway] ... for neglect of duty in accepting xerotine siccative in a can, instead of an iron cask or drum as required by the Reg^ns, whereby a lamentable loss of life occurred thro' the can leaking & the stuff exploding." —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was extremely helpful! Thanks, I'll include it in my article. I'll try to get around making a mention of it in the article on the ship too, but that might take a while. I did some more digging back in my original source and discovered that I was associating the wrong explosion with the wrong ship, which is what caused my confusion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New pronoun convention

I've just seen reference to a new pronoun usage here ('Friendly vessel=she; enemy vessel = he. Convention at the time.') I'm not entirely sure what source is being used here, but its certainly not a convention at the time, there are many contemporary instances of reports of captures referring to the enemy ship as 'she'. But even if it were, I suggest that using a Napoleonic-era convention (and again I stress that it isn't one) is going too far here. Ships should either be referred to with the feminine or neutral pronoun. Trying to use one based on conceptions of who is the enemy from the viewpoint of one article subject is open to bias, as well as being wholly anachronistic. Similarly to take a modern example, the Russian language (among other Slavic languages) refer to ships with the masculine pronoun. But on the English Wikipedia WP:SHIPPRONOUNS applies when referring to Russian vessels. Thoughts? Benea (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHIPPRONOUNS applies here, end of line. I'd argue that for Russians (and possibly German ships, but I'm not sure 100% on that) "Him/He" might be appropriate, or at least not revertable per WP:IAR, but here? Nope. "Her/She" or "It". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

With the example I used it actually turned out more confusing than I had realised. Since the ship in question was being referred to as 'her' while in original British service, changed to 'he' when she was captured by those dastardly enemy frogs! (ahem!) the French, and then back to 'her' when she was recaptured by the heroic and valiant Jack Tars! (ahem ahem!) the British. Another reason I think, if one were needed, not to adopt this. As to nationalities, writers in the English language use 'her' when referring to both Russian and German ships, but not 'him', as a general rule of thumb. Given the trouble we have over pronouns anyway, I think we ought to keep to that standard and continue our present usage. Benea (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick with either the feminine or neuter for ships articles. Although the Russians refer to ships in the masculine, our established practice is in the feminine. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sailing

I made a request here for promotion to Featured portals. Any suggestion or contribution is welcome. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Navy ship naming document

Some of you may have already seen this but I thought I would post it here: http://blog.shipindex.org/2012/04/more-on-us-navy-ship-naming/. —Diiscool (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Name protocol for HM Armed Ships

Having just found an article on HM Armed Ship Vigilant in the Mariner's Mirror, I'm preparing to start an article on the ship, but am a bit puzzled as to which prefix to use. There are several articles on HM Armed Transports, but nothing using HM Armed Ship. By analogy to HM Submarine, etc. I could use the ordinary HMS prefix, but then how do I explain that she was really just an armed ship. I suppose that I could put a note to that effect in the lede, but that seems rather clumsy. I'm rather inclined just to use HM Armed Ship as the title as that will be the simplest thing to do, but I thought I would ask for people's thoughts first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some details about the ship? Is she the former Empress of Russia perchance? 'Armed ship' was a form of rating in the navy, similar to 'armed brig' or so on. We use 'HMS' for ships that would have had similar ratings, like sloops, brigs, gunvessels, bombvessels, fireships, etc. The only distinction we usually make is for ships that were temporarily hired or requisitioned, like the transports, or HM hired brig Telegraph (1798), HM Armed Smack Inverlyon, etc. For Vigilant (if she is that ship) I'd therefore use HMS. Benea (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she's the former Empress of Russia. I'd forgotten the HM Brig, etc., usages as this really isn't my period, but since I found the article...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

She was initially registered as a sixth rate in May 1778, but rerated as an 'armed ship' in December that year. 'Armed ship' is more a rating than a descriptor, and was usually applied to most of the navy's storeships, transports, and other miscellaneous craft, and it could change if the navy decided to alter the rating (hence the shift from 'sixth rate' to 'armed ship'). Given the difficulties of using the rating in the title, it seems a good reason to stick to the HMS. She's on the navy lists in Colledge, which would also be a point in favour of the HMS. Benea (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do the sources prefer a particular prefix? If so, I'd prefer to use that on a WP:COMMONNAME basis (or even WP:V). If sources completely avoid prefixes then I'd be happy to go along with applying an acronym based on wikipedia's internal conventions - as long as it's understandable for a typical reader (ie. HMS). bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SS Valbanera

It has been proposed to move the SS Valbanera page back to its original title of Valbanera. Discussion is at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Horsepower question

I have a question regarding horsepower and ships. With regards to SS Empire Endurance, Lloyd's states that the ship had 1,000 nominal horsepower, while the book Deutschlands Handelsschiffe 1939–1945 says that she had 6,500 "horsepower" (Pferdestärken). Does anyone know which kind of horsepower the latter might be? Manxruler (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The rating given by Lloyd's is probably either for the triple-expansion engine or the turbine while the German rating is the combined shaft output (assuming that both the steam engine and the turbine are coupled to the same shaft, which is not obvious from the article). In any case, 750 kW is not enough to propel a 155-metre ship at 14 knots. Tupsumato (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. She had only one shaft, that should probably be mentioned. Thanks. Manxruler (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, 1,000 nhp, 6,500 shp then? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fort "Athabasca" or Fort "Athabaska" ?

SS Fort Athabasca was created probably using wrecksite as the source. However, {{Fort ships}} has it spelled "Athabaska" using the k instead of c. Any other sources around to verify the correct spelling? Brad (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Miramar lists her as Fort Athabaska. Manxruler (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As does The Mariners List. Wrecksite is not the most reliable of sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shipwreck category renaming

This discussion at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox merge request

Please merge the two infoboxes at PNS Ghazi keeping the non overlapping data. I've left a note at the talkpage of PNS Ghazi that it would be appropriate for a member of this project to carry out that part of the merge. Please leave a note there if a volunteer completes the merge. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. The inline citations need some cleanup and someone should check the facts once more. I also dislike the way of putting everything related to propulsion to "Ship propulsion" field — there's "Ship power" for the power-producing bits. Tupsumato (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was quick! Feel free to edit away if you think some thing is better presented in another way. Will recheck the facts as I've to put the characteristics in a section anyway per a GA reviewer's comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ship built categorys

I was wondering whether a new (Category:Whitby-built ships) should be created or whether a new (Category:Esk (North Yorkshire)-built ships) should be created for all the settlements along the River Esk in North Yorkshire? Newm30 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also I was wondering which category should ships built at Knottingley and Dover be placed under if created, and if not what ship built categorys would I need to create? Newm30 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there enough ships with articles to justify these categories? Categorisation by county (Yorkshire / Kent) would be the alternative. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is enough for Whitby category, however I didnt want to exclude other towns etc on the Esk? Newm30 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Using "Ship notes" for inline citations

Referring to this, this and this past discussion, what is our official guideline regarding lumping inline citations to "Ship notes" field as seen in some recent edits by User:Emerson7? The unofficial "Ship infobox for dummies" states that the Notes field should not be used in such way, but if that's the way things are done, perhaps we shouldn't advise against it. Tupsumato (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We set out various reasons in those discussions why the 'notes' section should not be used like that, everyone was in agreement, and it was enforced. And the same user as in each of those discussions is now returning to that editing pattern? Perhaps you could gently remind him of the past consensus, as I see no reason to change it. The last time he did this a user had the time consuming task of going through his edits and moving them back out of that field. It would save wasting both Emerson7's time and ours if he can be asked to stop early. Benea (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I left him a message with links to this and the past discussions. Although I (now) agree that facts cited in the article body need not to be cited in the infobox, and am applying such changes to my past articles, the remaining citations should be attached to the facts cited and not lumped together in a field which is not meant for combining citations in such way. Tupsumato (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's started to blanket revert me. This is the fourth time User:Emerson7 has gone back to these edit patterns after being notified each time and declining to engage in discussion. I think we are stretching good faith far enough. Can other users and maybe an admin take a look, this is becoming disruptive. Benea (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And there I was thinking you were an admin, Benea. Maybe you should be one? Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's time this went to WP:AN/I so it can be documented and acted upon. Four discussions on this topic is past AGF imo. Brad (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Emerson7. Now, where did I leave the key to my banhammer case? Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in your Parachute Pants? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't stopped as of 6 May. Fixing those references one day will be a pain in the aftship... Tupsumato (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

I've started and ANI notice here Brad (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How should we proceed with Dennis Brown's proposal? I think we have already tried that. Tupsumato (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The effort from Dennis Brown is appreciated but as of now I don't believe he understands the situation. My mistake was assuming that I wouldn't be making the complaint by myself. If ANI fails then someone else can take over. Brad (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm the one who has brought this up at WP:SHIPS several times, I think I should add my comments as well. I'll see to it after work. Tupsumato (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Japanese boy edits

Japanese boy (talk · contribs) has been making edits without references. It would be crystal ball at this point to predict aircraft carrier names and classes for ca 2040. This is the same editor predicting USS Enterprise (CVN-80) which is at AfD currently. Brad (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ames ships

The {{Ames ships}} template has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Query: Disambiguating by year

A couple of days ago, I moved HMAS Westralia (1939) to HMAS Westralia (1929). This was based on the advice at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Disambiguating ships with the same name, which recommends that ships be disambiguated by year of launch or construction if a hull/pennant disambiguator is inappropriate. 1929 is the year of completion stated in the article, while 1939 is the year the ship was requisitioned for Royal Australian Navy service.

Following this move, Newm30 (talk · contribs) posted on my talkpage their disagreement with the move as the article title is at "HMAS Westralia", and the ship was not 'a HMAS' in 1929, and stated that requisitioned ships are disambiguated by the year of commissioning (as an aside, this would be 1940, not 1939).

Is it common practice to disambiguate ships by the year of acquisition when the article is at the ship's 'military name' title? Does the naming convention need to be updated to reflect this? -- saberwyn 06:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that ships are disambiguated by year of launch, with any further disambiguation by builder, and further disbamiguation by builder, month and year of launch if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First dab by year of launch; so your move would be correct. If it's a case of not knowing the launch year, then year of completion, if not then year of acquisition or commissioning/in service. After that it would be more tricky. Brad (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is more complicated as in some cases we are creating a confusingly anachronistic title. Take the example of a French frigate Minerve launched in 1775, captured by the Royal Navy in 1783 and renamed HMS Diamond. There was an HMS Diamond already in service in 1775, and she only left service in 1782. To use the launch year and the Royal Navy name gives 'HMS Diamond (1775)' when this ship was actually a French ship with a different name in 1775, and the HMS Diamond that was in service in 1775 was a different ship altogether. Likewise with Westralia, you are giving the impression that there was an HMAS Westralia in service in 1929, when there would actually be a full decade before she entered service with the RAN. If a name and date are going to be used, we need to be sure they are consistent with each other. Given the Westralia had the pennant number F95, HMAS Westralia (F95) would be one way to sidestep the issue in this specific instance (HMS Hector (F45), HMS Artifex (F28), HMS Pretoria Castle (F61), etc are other examples). Benea (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's a pennant number, that's definitely the best solution. We lose either way with dates - if we use the commissioning one, the reader can end up confused as to why half the article takes place before the date in big letters at the top... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Benea, provide a cite for the pennant number, please, and I'll call it a day. -- saberwyn 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3372.html Benea (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with disambiguating by pennant number. I was concerned that we were going to allude to there being a HMAS Westralia in 1929, which is clearly incorrect. Can we update the naming convention for military ships names e.g HMS, HMAS, etc, so that if a year is used in the article name, it is the year of commission or capture (I will let you decide)? I also note that by going with this, that there are always exceptions to the rules at times, which can be resolved here. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured List nomination

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle has been nominated as a Featured List candidate. Please give your view on this nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chronometers on HMS Beagle/archive1. SpinningSpark 08:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Carrier Strike Group

There's a dispute resolution noticeboard case unfolding re the U.S. Navy that needs more uninvolved editor input - above. Would people please give their thoughts at the above link? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

SS Westport

Which SS Westport is this? Obviously not the 1911 one, but is it the 1918 or 1943 ship? Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks very much like the Armadillo-class tanker USS Porcupine (IX-126) (File:Porcupine IX-126.jpg), making it the 1943 vessel. 194.221.74.219 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it does have features that match other Liberty ships. The mast tops are very similar to Richard Montgomery. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Elder Dempster liner that became a coal hulk

I'm expanding the List of shipwrecks in 1937. The Times of 19 Feb reports that patrol vessel HMS PC 74 collided with a coal hulk at Portland, sinking the latter. This ship was reported as having been a former Elder Dempster Lines ocean liner which had been sunk "25 years earlier" by HMS Dreadnought and also a previous record holder for the Bristol - West Indies route. A search of The Times hasn't shown up any collision for HMS Dreadnought and an ocean liner, so it may have been a sister ship. But what was the name of the liner in question? Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Found it! It was SS Haytian. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spanish merchant flag 1785-1927

You may not be aware, but between 1785 and 1927, the flag flown by Spanish merchantmen was . This can be made to display by the use of {{flag|Spain|civil}}, which will produce Spain. For pre-1785 and post-1927 ships use the relevant year code per Template:Country data Spain. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How many ensigns in a warship infobox?

There is an argument developing between Fry1989 (talk · contribs), Nick Thorne (talk · contribs), and myself regarding the addition of the British White Ensign to ships that did not serve in the Royal Navy, specificily HMAS Sydney (R17), HMAS Melbourne (R21), and HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22). The discussion so far has been at Fry's talk page (User talk:Fry1989#warship flags)

Fry's claim is that if a ship served in a Dominion navy (i.e. Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy etc) while those navies still used a copy of the British White Ensign, the infobox should display that particular ensign. While I agree for ships that spent the entire career under that ensign, in these instances the ships carried the later-introduced unique national ensign, and my understanding is that the infobox should only show one ensign, being the last-flown flag.

Its gotten rather heated, so I'm asking for further opinions here on what SHIPS (and MILHIST, who have been advised) rules are on flags in infoboxes. -- saberwyn 01:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted, if there's a policy (or one is constructed based upon this inquiry) to only use the most-recently flown ensign of that ship if it flew under multiple ensigns during it's service, while I personally would disagree with it and feel all ensigns of the ship should be used, I would abide by that policy. However, I've seen multiple infoboxes that do not follow such an ideal, perhaps most noticeably the SAS Somerset, which has used all the ensigns the Somerset served under in it's infobox since the article's creation in June 2010. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFF does it doesn't make it right...in fact that other stuff might be wrong! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if there is an actual policy in effect, or one is created because of this discussion, I'll abide by it. But if there's not, then saying "it's wrong" is a personal opinion. Quote a policy, or create one, but don't tell me it's wrong just because you think it's wrong or a group of people think it's wrong but there's no policy or guideline that says one way or the other. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How about WP:COMMONSENSE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't try and pull that with me. You (or others) may like something a certain way and feel it's common sense that it should be that way, but that's not binding on others, and I (or others) can like it the way I (we) think it should be. Unless there's a policy that says one way or another, you can't not, and I absolutely reject your attempt to, apply your view of what common sense is upon others. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989, part of the problem here is that you kept moving the goal posts. When I first pulled you up on this you incorrectly claimed that some of the Majestics had in fact serverd in the RN, whereas I had stated that none of them had. You even pointed to 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier to support you, when in fact this article directly contradicted you. Then you claimed that Venerable and Theseus were both Majestic class carriers that had served in the RN and I had to point out to you that both these ships were in fact Colossus class. You also made the claim that these ships had Infobox sections showing U.K. service, which is completely incorrect. So in the end after saberwyn quite rightly pointed out to you that the RAN has always flown it own ensign since 1913 a point you gloss over, you now want to still add the RN ensign which is clearly misleading in this context. Well, maybe had you started out that way we may have had an interesting discussion, instead you throw around ad hominem comments and then accuse me of lacking good faith. IMO, we should stick to showing only the "flag last flown" in country sections of service boxes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's more complicated and wider-reaching then just the Majestic-class (or any specific class of ship for that matter). The issue now is wither or not ships that served in a navy other than the Royal Navy, but which during their time of service, used the UK's white ensign, should have the UK white ensign in their infobox. I'm not glossing over anything, the fact is that between 1911 and 1968 the RAN used the UK's white ensign under orders of the Admiralty. The flag was exactly the same whether flying on an RN or a RAN ship, there was no distinction. Also, as I explained on my talk page, Template:Country_data_Australia makes available the use of the ensign which the RAN used between these two dates. Now, if you had said on my talk page that you feel we should only use one ensign in infoboxes and that should be the last-flown ensign, then this discussion would be very different, but instead you said that I was adding the RN ensign to a ship which wasn't in the RN, which is irrelevant because the flag used was the same flag. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the various lists of shipwrecks, if a "foreign" navy was using the White Ensign at the time, that is the flag that should be displayed. AFAIK, this applies to Australia, Canada, India, South Africa and New Zealand. Therefore, Fry1989 is correct in adding the White Ensign as it was the flag flown by the ship in question at the time. That said, it is also correct that it is accepted practice that where a flag changed during a period in service, the last flag is shown, rather than both/all flags. For an example of multiple useage of ensigns in a ship article, see HMS Speedy (1782), which is a Featured Article. Note that the White Ensign shown is the later, post-1801 ensign, not the one in use between 1706 and 1801. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Accepted practice", but not the rule. I have to disagree with that practice for multiple reasons. The biggest reason is like this example: Ship A served the Royal Navy for 40 years, 38 of those were before 1801, means the ships spent a majority of it's time under the pre-1801 white ensigns, and only 2 years under the current one. It's dishonest to the history of the ship to hide that fact. There's many ships in several navies that follow this example. Also, i can't find any harm is showing all ensigns that the ship flew under, it's nit-picking to complain and say we should only use one, and I'm willing to bet there's many who would agree. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Accepted practice", but not the rule. - Not a rule, true, but it is in fact WP:CONSENSUS achieved through editing, which is a valid means of achieving consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that you would now see common practice as consensus building, when before you tried to brush it away as WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pick a hole and stick with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am indifferent to which actual flag was flown; all I care about is illustrating changes in ownership. So I see no need to show two different ensigns if the national ensign changed during the ship's lifetime; one suffices. And I don't care which one is chosen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Which does not address special circumstances like if a ship spent a majority of it's time in service under one ensign and then only a short time under another, but both ensigns were for the same Navy. Also sofar nobody has been able to point out an actual rule or guideline against it, or state any kind of harm or distraction showing all the ensigns the ship flew under would cause. Calling it "common sense" means nothing. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'last ensign flown' practice has been a sensible one, and should be continued to be adhered to. First of all, and particularly for the Royal Navy and British merchant shipping historically, the use of ensigns is massively complicated. A ship may have flown all of the blue, white and red ensigns appropriate to her particular period, solely depending on which flag officer she was ultimately under the orders of. Similarly merchant ships could fly different flags depending on their circumstances. It was only in the 1860s that the ensigns were reassigned to particular branches. Flags of convenience for strategic advantage in particular situations were also an accepted practice among the warships and merchants of all nations, and continued to be so right up until the modern era. Other nations' ensigns existed briefly before being changed within a few years (the French in the 1790s to 1800s is one example). If we are going to consider it dishonest not to include all flags in the infobox, well where do we draw the line? Why should a pre-1801 white ensign and a post-1801 white ensign suffice, when the ship may historically have never flown either? There are ample service related fields immediately below specifically to cover the periods of service.

Now as to the practice of putting all ensigns in, as with SAS Somerset, well that article is a good illustration of why it just becomes confusing, and even misleading. The ship may have flown each ensign at some point or other. At no point did she fly them all simultaneously, or even two together, as their arrangement there seems to indicate. The infobox flag should be a simple illustration of the naval service a warship belonged to at a particular point. It shouldn't be a descriptive rundown of each flag that ship may have flown at each point in her career. One ensign is sufficient for this, and making it the last one is logical. Ensign changes often (but not always) mark a particular watershed in a state or its navy's existence, and the use of the later ensign marks the ship's continued existence and service after this change.

This dispute seems to have come up from a simple and honest misunderstanding of some edits made in good faith and reverted in good faith. All previous arguments aside, the use of the infobox ensign field has been discussed before, and the general consensus of 'last ensign flown' has been reached, along with the decisions to use ensigns and not jacks, etc etc. This was codified in User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox Ship For Dummies

The flag depicted should be the last version of the flag flown by the vessel (or if multiple "Career" subtemplates are in use, the last version flown during the relevant part of the ship's history). For example, Australian warships that left service after 1967 will show the new (and current) Australian White Ensign, while ships that decommissioned before this flag came into use will use the old version.

so if you want a written expression of this, there it is. Given that the matter has been raised, we can discuss whether this wording has consensus now. My feeling from the above posts is that there is no consensus to change. Benea (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this. Further I would like to add that we have not discussed what the purpose of the flag in the infobox actually is. It seems to me, that the purpose of putting a flag there is to provide a simple visual identification of the service in which the ship served. It is not intended to be a list of every flag that may have been flown by that ship (if that is seen as a desirable thing, then perhaps it should be incorporated into a separate section in the article with explicit explanations). It seems to me that simply showing the last flag flown achieves the identification purpose in a concise and clear fashion. Putting mutiple flags in the infobox only confuses the issue and can easily mislead the reader. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a way to account for changes of flag in the infobox. See SS Empire Endurance for an example. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Now as to the practice of putting all ensigns in, as with SAS Somerset, well that article is a good illustration of why it just becomes confusing, and even misleading. The ship may have flown each ensign at some point or other. At no point did she fly them all simultaneously, or even two together, as their arrangement there seems to indicate". That's laughable, nobody would think that the ship flew all those ensigns simultaneously unless they know absolutely nothing about ships and/or flags. So far, still nobody has been able to point out any true harm or distraction that being historically accurate would cause, and until someone does, I'm not convinced. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be convinced. If you are the only one expressing one viewpoint then the concensus is probably against you. All you need is to accept that majority opinion differs. And from my reading of the discussion, the prevailing viewpoint is just to give one flag for one service no matter how many times that service changed the flag. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Graeme, you can't win them all. There are times when one just has to accept that one's views are in the minority, bow to the majority view and gracefully accept the position as it is. Doing so is a sign of strength, not weakness. Mjroots (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I don't have to be convinced, but what's more important is that I have an actual reason to not yet be convinced, rather than just being obstinate. The assumption that showing multiple ensigns would be confusing and make people think the ship flew them all at the same time suggests our readers are stupid. I'd rather think that our readers are smart enough to figure things out if they're not sure. We're here to educate and show facts about history, not hide things because they may confuse people, which I still find laughable. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't this entire discussion start because an experienced editor knowledgeable in naval matters saw {{shipboxflag|UK|naval}} added to articles on Australian aircraft carriers, and mistakenly assumed that this was being used to indicate that the ships had served in the Royal Navy? One flag per navy was the previous consensus (which appears to be supported in this discussion), so two flags = two navies is a logical conclusion to draw. If two experienced editors can make that mistake, what about inexperienced readers, particularly as the infobox flag is currently displayed with little immediate context? (As an aside, if {{shipboxflag|Australia|naval-1913}} had been used, we'd be approaching this discussion from a different, possibly less-heated angle, but hindsight is a wonderful thing).

I also agree with Benea's point below, if all ensigns are added to the infobox, there will be cases with a ridiculous number of flags crammed into a small space, most likely below the resolution where differences between the individual flags will be apparent. As an example, the changes between incarnations of the US flag are little more than the addition and rearrangement of the stars, can anyone tell at first glance the difference between and without getting up-close-and-personal with their monitor?

Also, where would the line be drawn? Modern RAN ships fly the Australian Red Ensign during sea trials and prior to commissioning...does that belong in the infobox? Do we need to identify the specific squadron a pre-1860s British ship flew the ensign for, with multiple ensigns for any ships reassigned between the red, white, and blue squadrons (as an aside, did reassignment between squadrons happen? I'm curious), or do we just put a "one-size-fits-all" for each era the ship served in? Will we have to assume that the ship flew every relevant ensign for the time periods they were in service, or will we need to prove that a particular ship actually flew a particular ensign with cites to reliable, published sources? -- saberwyn 05:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we ought to move one with this, this is coming down to one person's preference against what I think are solid problems with showing every ensign. Unless somehow we want USS Constitution with every ensign she ever flew in the infobox (26 or so different ones I believe?). Or six ensigns for Royal Navy ships in service both in 1800 and in 1801. Now there's something really laughable. Benea (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Benea. Fry, it's time to drop the stick and stop flogging a dead horse. Consensus is against you on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me what it's time to do and not do. I will do as I please. And Benea, if you're gonna make an analogy, atleast make one that's historically possible. The Royal Navy has never had more than three ensigns, rather than six, and it only changed once in 1801, so a ship in service in 1800 and 1801 would only have two ensigns in it's infobox. That's what's really laughable here, you people have to resort to hyperbole to get your point across because of how absurd it is. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can do as you please. There are plenty of admins with banhammers about. Now, please drop the stick, or you will find youself at WP:ANI. BTW, the Royal Navy changed its ensign twice, from Royal Navy to Royal Navy in 1707, and then to Royal Navy in 1801. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture issue

A discussion has been opened on the talk page of the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) centered on the issue of whether or not to include a mention of battleship's appearance in the music video If I Could Turn Back Time, all interested editors are welcome to participate. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention for US Navy ships

Hi guys, can you pls point me towards your naming convention page re US Navy active warships. In enwiki the naming convention seems to be, for example, USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), while Navy seems to omit the dash, like: USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51). I'm very curious about the reason why enwiki decided not to use Navy's names. Thanks --Viktorhauk (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally and historically, the Navy has used the dash, IIRC; the leaving it out is a recent affectation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)