Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Miramar request

I'm working on Japanese aircraft carrier Chūyō, formerly the NYK liner Nitta Maru, and there's a Miramar reference that I need to have checked out: ID #4046813. I'm looking to add as much information as I can on her civilian specifications, # of passengers, type of length (doesn't really match the data I have for her post conversion), etc. I'm not sure that the original editor used everything that was available on Miramar since I've never seen what it actually has. And if anyone more familiar with passenger ships has any suggestions or additional information, feel free to add your material or start a discussion on the talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

All of the brief data from the Miramar entry is already in the article. I've tweaked the refs slightly to match that. Davidships (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying. I was hoping for engine type and other info. But thanks for looking it up for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Miramar, keel laid 9/5/38 - well, that's in the infobox now but not main body text. The article also says the ship departed on her maiden voyage 23/03/40, but Miramar doesn't actually say that, it says the ship was completed on that date. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether this from Lloyds list is of any use. It appears to be the same ship and gives dimensions etc, but the quoted power of 3500 NHP doesn't seem to make sense. Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That's actually quite helpful as it resolves one dispute in the sources about her engines. The length still doesn't match up, but I suppose the IJN could have remodelled her bow during the conversion. I suppose that nhp was have been retained for comparative purposes, but it does distinctly look odd for a turbine-powered ship. And thanks for clarifying the Miramar entry, Gatoclass, I've updated the article accordingly. I've found some other info on the web as to passenger count, etc., but it's all unsourced. Anybody know of a good book on the Japanese merchant fleet that might have it as I'd like to take this to GAN at some point?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit sloppy re Miramar. To compensate I found a Times article on passenger numbers and some other bits and pieces, so have added them now.Davidships (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, I'm just happy to have the information. And you've more than made up for any faults with the Times article!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Waldo's Passenger Ships of the World has an entry on Nitta Maru, which says she set a transpacific speed record in April 1941 - see this. The date however would seem to contradict the statement in the article that she was requisitioned as a military transport the previous February. Gatoclass (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It turns out there is quite a bit of info on this ship's service history on Newspapers.com, probably enough to make a fairly substantial merchant service section. The record trip is confirmed, in fact the vessel appears to have made a couple of record trips. Maiden voyage appears to have occurred in May-June 1940, followed by a 70-day return trip to various ports from San Francisco. I will try to make some clippings available later. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

template:Gundisp

{{Gundisp}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"RRS Discovery"

Should RRS Discovery receive a shipindex? RRS Discovery (index) or something. There's currently four ships here, three attached to the hatnote at the base article, plus the article itself. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO yes. Disambiguate the current article by year and change the article to a shipindex. Tupsumato (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an index is needed. But it might be arguable that Shackleton's ship is the most famous of the lot and should have the primary location. In that case, the usual format would be Lisf of ships named RSS Discovery (see for instance List of ships named HMS Victory). Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

How about List of ships named Discovery which would also include HMS Discovery? Tupsumato (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That'd work too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a single shiplist for Discovery would be the most useful, though I strongly prefer Discovery (list of ships) or similar as a standard. There are already twelve ship articles listed at Discovery, plus three HMS Discoverys. Davidships (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about the title, I just knew that the "List of ships named..." was an established format. I know we discussed this relatively recently, but don't recall what the outcome was. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Title is of course relatively unimportant, but standard formatting for list titles is "List of X Y Z", not parentheticals, so I would suggest using that format. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

duplicate parameters (2)

re: this discussion

Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox deprecated parameters has been cleared except for these instances in draft, user, and talk space:

Talk:HMS Belfast (C35)/GA1/HMS Belfast (C35)

Draft:NR-1 Sinkhole

User:Rgdem999/HMS Wanderer (1919)

Accordingly, I have removed the deprecated parameters from {{infobox ship characteristics}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mismatched references in submarine templates

Is there some automated way to fix all the mismatched refs in the US WW2 submarine articles? USS Stickleback (SS-415) is an example of this problem. The article itself declares a ref name=FriedmanSubs1-specs and two different templates in the infobox call the same one, but the text difers between the three. Same thing with the ref name=Register. The problem appears to be in the numerous variations of {{Fleet-boat-armament-5-inch}} and {{Fleet-boat-propulsion-late-FM-2-E}}. I've seen quite a few articles that have the same problem, would it be better to subst the templates into each article, rename the refs in the template so they are not the same name as the articles or try to sync them all back up somehow and wait for the various bots / AWB's to change them and break them again later? There are numerous (50+) articles that have this same problem, basically every Gato, Balao and Trench class sub has this issue. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the problems with that kind of template. The error message occurs because the content of two or more named ref tags is different before the template inside the ref tags is expanded. If the comparison occurred after template expansion, then assuming that all of the template's parameter values were the same, the two references would be identical.

I have just gone through the {{Fleet-boat-propulsion-...}} templates and modified the <ref name="Register"> to include the page range specified in the cs1 template like this: <ref name="Register 275–280">. This removes the error message from the article at the possible expense of two citations to the same page range.

I will now go through the templates again and attempt to make the references have the same content in exactly the same format.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now done the same to Friedman and the {{Fleet-boat-armament-...}} templates. Minor tweaks to USS Stickleback (SS-415) to clean up. No doubt, further clean up is in order not only on that article but on all of the other fleet boat articles.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's probably better than trying to re-sync them all back together, though there are apparently some articles that don't declare ref-name=register on there own so those have errors "was invoked but never defined" errors ie[1]. A few of them are cancelled subs that never had keels laid. I could have fixed a few of them, but I don't understand why there was an article like USS Vendace (SS-430), which never had a keel laid. I redirected it to the class article instead, but maybe that's not what WP:Ships prefers. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Le Fantasque class of French WWII destroyers -naming

All my references for this class start the ship name with L' or Le. Here on wikipedia we seem to have a mismatch with some titles for the individual ships omitting the L' or Le and also in the text. I believe that long ago someone changed them all on french grammar grounds and some have been reverted and corrected and some have not. Just to be clear its just this class of ship and its not a prefix as in "THE Fantasque" but actually part of the name of the ship as in the Le Fantasque. Should I set out to start amending them? Lyndaship (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that this situation satisfies WP:THE. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all my French-language sources use the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit dispute over a battleship article

Wiki-Ed and I are having a heated dispute as to the content of HMS Warspite (03) as to the appropriate level of detail and types of information included in the article. Interested readers are invited to comment on the article talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Thekla

Can I ask for some help about The Thekla. There is an uncited paragraph with a clarify tag on it "The Thekla was built in Germany in 1959. One of the last riveted ships to be produced , she was 650 tons unladen, measured one hundred and eighty feet long from stem to stern, and thirty feet wide, with an eight-foot draft. The Thekla's hold was lined with one of the hardest woods in the world, red jarrah from Australia. She is a "Coaster" ship and powered by a U-boat engine left over from the Second World War. The Thekla was used for more than twenty years to transport timber to and from ports of the Baltic Sea. After running aground at Gravesend in Kent she was left rusting away for seven years in the half-abandoned docks of Sunderland on the eastern coast of England, before being purchased by the Stanshalls." Can any of the experts here explain the bit about rivets or provide any citations?— Rod ^talk 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspect some benign myth-making here. What can be cited is that Thekla's hull is part-riveted. Lloyd's Register shows "Hull Connections:Riveted/welded". But that was common in the 1950s and later, at least for these small coasters. Later ships from the same shipyard (Büsumer Schiffswerft W & E Sielaff, Büsum) up to about 1963 show the same. It could be that they were all-riveted ships originally and the welded sections are from repairs and alterations over the years, and shipping publications from the 1960s would probably show whether this is so. There seems nothing to suggest that Thekla (incidentally, completed 1958, not 1959) could have been the last built.

As for the diesel engine, this is listed in LR as by Bohn & Kähler, Kiel, model KR228SU, with nothing to suggest that it predates 1958. Moreover, this was a 1950s design [2]. Maybe B&K built earlier KR versions for U-boats, but I have not found any RS for this. This is not to impute any criticism of the owners and former owners of Thekla, from whom these claims derive, as they may well follow what they were told by the sellers at the time.

Incidentally, presumably the article should be renamed Thekla (ship), Thekla (music venue) or some such. Davidships (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As you are obviously more familiar with the sources and engineering involved (and I can't read the German in the source given) would you be kind enough to make the changes and add sources as appropriate and I will attempt to add some sources to the rest of the article. As far as the article title goes common usage is "The Thekla" and as it is no longer used as a ship is Thekla (ship) appropriate? As we have other other article called "The Thekla" is any form of disambiguation needed?— Rod ^talk 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Rod, for not getting round to this yet- I'll do so shortly (leaving aside the title, that is). Davidships (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Article should be at MV Thekla (1958) per our naming conventions. Quite likely there were several ships with the name. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There appear to have been a total of three diesel powered ships named Thekla. So MS Thekla (1958) or MV Thekla (1958) is appropriate. Manxruler (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for input. I think the V in MV is for vessel but is the M motor and what is MS? How do you decide which is most appropriate?— Rod ^talk 07:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

MV stands for Motor Vessel, while MS stands for Motor Ship. Motor in this context means the ship is powered by an internal combustion engine (like a diesel engine). Whether one uses MS or MV is all personal preference and up to the editor in question. Manxruler (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just from long observation, my personal belief is that the use MS has grown largely from it's use by non-mother-tongue nationals, particularly from Germany and Scandinavia, often writing in excellent English (and not therefore needing translation), using their national abbreviation (DK motorskib, DE Motorschiff, NL motorschip, NO motorskip) which of course works in English. The word "motorship" has, of course, been used in English since they were first invented - though, if I remember correctly, the journal The Motorship founded in 1920, does not use MS. If it was thought desirable to standardise, I would go for MV as this is English WP, though I cannot get myself that fussed about it as I don't much care for these prefixes anyway.

For the record, most English-language RS use plain Thekla and a few use "MV Thekla" - but not one such use of "MS Thekla" for this ship that Google produces. And just to add spice, there were at least two similar ships built as Thekla in Germany in 1958 (IMO 5358206 and 5358218), and both registered at the same port. Davidships (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Davidships: do we know the builders? Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and started on the ship history part - will do more in coming days, and hopefully be able to remove some of the tags. One question, though. Should the article have a ship Infobox, or should that be dispensed with as most of her notability is from non-maritime activity? Can't see where to put one! Davidships (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the prefix MS might originally have come from non-English languages, but in that case it must have happened very early, seeing as things like the journal Motorship from 1916 uses MS. As does Cassier's Engineering Monthly in 1913. The current infobox looks fine to me, she's best known for non-ship activities. Manxruler (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe MS/MV Thekla (1958) could be used as redirects, and the article's title could be "Thekla (music venue)"? That would reflect clearly the current non-ship status of Thekla (after all, she was an active ship for 25 years and has been a stationary object for 33 years, and it would be very surprising if she ever became a merchant ship again). Manxruler (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me right re The Motorship. It was the increased use of MS, alongside MV, in recent decades that I would attribute to the articulate large community of NW European ship professionals and enthusiastsDavidships (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I haven't really noticed a change in favour of MS recently, but I suppose that might be the case. Either way MV and MS should be treated as equally acceptable prefixes. Anyway, as mentioned above, I think the correct title for this article is "Thekla (music venue)", with other titles as redirects. Manxruler (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Le Malin

Could someone with the proper tools please move Le Malin to French destroyer Le Malin, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)? Manxruler (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It was me who wrongly moved it. I apologise - I'm still learning.Lyndaship (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

U-108 article has U-109 text

Hi, I've just been looking at First World War submarines, and I notice that the article for U-108 actually has the text for U-109 instead (as does the U-109 article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.97.214.176 (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Boka Star

I'm not sure if there are any notability guidelines regarding ships, so I thought those here more knowledgeable might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boka Star. - Location (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The basic premise is that any ship of 100' length or 100 tons (however measured) should be capable of supporting an article. WP:GNG is the basic standard that needs to be met. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The article could do with some eyes on it. Referenced info is being deleted as "false". I'm not getting drawn into an edit war; see talk. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at this, and the reference to the High Court proceedings added in the talk page this morning (which I find pretty impenetrable with Google Translate). I think that the issue boils down to the allegations concerning the presence of chemical missile propellants which the editor, claims to be untrue and only cited to sources which he characterises as yellow press. That text has, I think, been removed, though there is still some citing of an article from 'Nacional'. In any case I have no knowledge of whether those Croatian sources are indeed RS or not. That said, some textual improvement and referencing of current position on the Balić trials might be useful.Davidships (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The article is now at PO-92 Ugor. Discussion re the correct title of the article per WP:NC-S is ongoing at talk:PO-92 Ugor. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

List of countries with warships has been nominated for deletion; the discussion can be found here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Less relevant AfD

....meanwhile while it's outside the project's "100/100" scope, members might be interested in Monkey Business (yacht) having been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

USS Donald Cook

FYI, USS Donald Cook is having more issues similar to those mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 45#USS Donald Cook protection needed. Unprovable jamming claims and the absurd claim that 10% of the crew resigned after the alleged incident. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

San Jose (galleon)

There is a new article on a recently found Spanish galleon shipwreck containing "billions" in gold and silver. However, I am not sure the article name complies with the standard format: Spanish galleon San José. Please review and move as needed. Also, please review the categories at the bottom. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's exactly the correct format, per WP:NC-SHIPS, and all of the categories seem fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Guidance please

I've just been looking at this article https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/HMS_Exmoor_(L08). Is this level of detail for its service history appropriate together with all the links to the many other ships which accompanied her? Lyndaship (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Everything is referenced. Some ships it is possible to put together at detailed history for, others it isn't. These examples go to show the service history of a vessel at a particular timeframe, and are probably typical of similar vessels in service at the time. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail is appropriate for an active wartime escort (although the 9 years of peacetime Danish service should be expanded if sources can be found). However, I think that some of those laundry lists of ships are excessive: on my screen, some of these take up the full width of the screen, and one (" On 13 June 1942,...") takes up two full lines. May be better to just indicate that Exmoor joined a particular group or operation and let wikilinks to the dedicated article(s) handle the listing of all the participants.

As an example, you could rewrite the 13 June example (and surrounding text) to read "... lasted into June 1942, when Exmoor and Croome were assigned to take part in Operation Vigorous. The two destroyers joined the escort of the Malta-bound Convoy MW 11 on 13 June 1942. Axis aircraft began attacks on the convoy on 14 June 1942;..." I left the mention of Croome in because the preceding content in the paragraph indicated that the two ships had been operating together for a while, and you could re-expand the detail a little with something like "...joined the British and Australian destroyers escorting the Malta-bound..." or ...joined the 25-ship escort force for the Malta-bound..." -- saberwyn 04:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

US Naval Vessel Register

Does anyone know why the NVR is offline? It appears to have been this way for some time now. This could be a problem. Actually, it already is, but if this is long-term or even permanent, than this is a very serious problem. - ^theWOLFchild 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NVR is working for me.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: - Really? Do you mind if I ask what country you're in? - ^theWOLFchild 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's working now in the USA, but it wasn't working this weekend, at least not for me. It was down for a few weeks earlier this year, I know I used it in June or July. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not workng at present for me in UK. Get error "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." Davidships (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not working here in Canada on two separate days at two different locations using two different browsers and two different operating systems. Llammakey (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've sent a message to the navy (at navy.mil) advising them of this and requesting info. Hopefully I'll get a response in a few days. If and when I do, I'll post something here letting everyone know. - ^theWOLFchild 20:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have been in contact with an IT admin from NavSea Systems Command. They say they've had similar problems in the past, and it turned out to be a server issue. They're now looking into it. (hopefully it'll be resolved soon). - ^theWOLFchild 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Access Poll

It's been 3 weeks since I brought this issue to the Navy. As of today, I still can't access the site, unless I'm in the US. I've spoken with some people in both Canada and the UK, none of whom seem to able to access the site. I spoke with the Navy about this again today, and they seem somewhat perplexed by this. They'd like to know how widespread the issue is. This is an informal poll. Please state whether or not you can access the Vessel Register at http://www.nvr.navy.mil and what country (and city if possible) you tried accessing the site from. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 19:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's working in the United States. You can also use https://www.uptrends.com/tools/uptime instead of hoping folks will answer here. Looks like it's not working outside of the United States. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's not working in Norway. Manxruler (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Still down in the UK. I have to wonder if part of the navy.mil domain is being intentionally blocked from access from outside the US and the NVR is caught up in it.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait until after the New Year and give them a call if the problem still persists. - ^theWOLFchild 02:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Portals

Londonclanger has been adding a portal bar consisting of

• portal1=Royal Navy
• portal2=World War II
• portal3=Military of the United Kingdom
• portal4=Nautical

to a bunch of WW2-era British warships and I've deleted the last two from some of them, but thought that I'd bring it up here for discussion before I spend any more time doing so. I feel that the Military of the UK portal is rather redundant to the the RN portal for a ship article (and far less likely to be used!) and that the usefulness of the Nautical portal is rather more theoretical than practical. Given that they're tucked all the way at the bottom of the article, I really can't say that they're particularly obtrusive, but the number does seem a bit excessive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at portal 3 & 4 and the content they (currently) have I wouldn't be fussed if dropped. They are the last thing on the page though as mentioned and if a reader has got that far they may be interested in exploring the various portals (I'm guessing that's their purpose and I only came across them yesterday TBH and found them of interest ans started adding). But, as I said, not overly concerned about removing 3 & 4 if consensus can be agreed here on which portals to include. I'll hang fire before adding to other second world war RN vessels for the time being. Londonclanger (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't see any harm in having these extra portals added. They are subject related, they're way at the bottom, and readers may find them useful. - ^theWOLFchild 03:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

Wondering if some editors here wouldn't mind taking a look at;

• Tanker (ship)
• Replenishment oiler
• Oil tanker
• United States Navy oiler
• (any others I may have missed)
  

Looking for redundancies/duplication and/or merge opportunities (or necessities).
Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 02:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest keep Replenishment oiler and United States Navy oiler. The latter is already quite long and detailed and would not merge well with the generic Replenishment oiler - this could be expanded with more general history and overview.

Tanker (ship) is rather skimpy and overlaps/duplicates material in Oil tanker. Suggest a merge of these two under the former title - and including a section on non-petroleum tankers, with links as required, including Gas carrier. Davidships (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of active Russian Navy ships#Messy

Idea was raised on whether or not to tidy up what looks to be a messy list. It was suggested we use a similar layout as List of current ships of the United States Navy. I personally agree, and believe it would be nice to hear other peoples opinion before a consensus/decision is made. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō ; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Admiralty type flotilla leader/HMS Mackay(D70)

Can somebody who has the ability remove the redirect for HMS Mackay (D70) to the Admiralty type flotilla leader page please. Mackay should have its own page under that title. If I'm wrong in my request or if I'm asking at the wrong place please tell me nicely Lyndaship (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have content for HMS Mackay (D70), you can just replace content of the redirect page with your new content.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, just go ahead and edit the redirect itself. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Paging those with time on their hands...

...in this busy holiday season, as North Korean cargo ship seizure in Panama has had its AfD closed as merge to Chong Chon Gang, an article within this project, so if anyone has a spot of time for that sort of thing (my poor tired brain, alas, does not), that could be great. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Article renaming proposed

You're invited to participate in the discussion about renaming Essex (whaleship), which is really about the ship's disastrous final voyage. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd's List sinks the tradition of calling ships 'she'

I would like to get the opinion of people here, since "She" and "It" are now both accepted to reference a Ship, should Ship Owning Companies wishing to use "It" when talking about their ship on Wiki be allowed to do so?Excerpt from the Article:

SHIPS should no longer be called "she", the industry's newspaper has decreed. Lloyd's List, the 268-year-old publication which claims to be the world's oldest daily newspaper, is to abandon centuries of seafaring tradition

by calling all vessels "it". The reason, explained in yesterday's issue, is to bring the paper "into line with most other reputable international business titles". Julian Bray, the editor, wrote: "The shipping industry does need to move forward if it is not to risk becoming a backwater of international business. I decided that it was time to catch up with the rest of the world, and most other news organisations refer to ships as neuter. "They are maritime real estate. The world moves on. I can see why 'she' would suit a magnificent cruise liner but to a rusting old hulk it could be rather offensive.

Sysgen (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no question about being allowed to; editors just have to respect the choice made by the first editor to use the pronoun. No converting from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the issue arose here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I read this correctly, since we are not the first editors, we are not allowed to change it, right? Can we ask for it to be changed in any way? If the first editor agrees? If he does not agree, what is our recourse? Sysgen (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, there is none. I would caution you to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, noted, by reading your link I could at least use a "request edit" and hope that the editor agrees, right? That would be an acceptable solution. Sysgen (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the best course of action for you to take. Parsecboy (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So how changing from "She" to "It" would appear as a COI, COI is defined as follows (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.), how can we benefit from these changes? I want to learn. Sysgen (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That was not specifically directed at your request to change "she" to "it" - just a general warning, since you appear to be editing in some sort of official capacity for Fednav. Parsecboy (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-15/Op-ed. It's a rather contentious issue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As a side note to WP:NC-SHIPS, what could be a "substantial reason" that would permit changing from one style to another? For example, if a group of articles is covered by a common navigation template (e.g. this one) and it can be reasonably expected that a reader would continue reading from one article to the next one, would it be acceptable to "enforce" a common style to maintain a consistent reading experience? Tupsumato (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any attempt to prevent those who write ship articles and lists to be forced to use "she" or "it" when writing. Lloyds is NOT Wikipedia. It is up to the writer of the article to decide. Most of us use she for ships. If you want to see ships refer to as "it", then write some articles on them. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was mostly concerned about a stray "it" article among all those "she" articles, but in general I agree with you. We shall follow our own established practices which allow both styles and frown upon conversion from one style to another. Tupsumato (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Stray thought: Should there be a template for "She4Ships" and "It4Ships" resp., like the ones for national varieties of English? And what would be an appropriate term to replace "sister ship" – class mate? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No offence to Stephanie from Fednav, or Lloyds, but their policy has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Referring to ships as "she" is an accepted, long-standing practice, not only here in the project, but in the history of the nautical world. I see no need to change it. Those seeking to do so could very well be brushing up with WP:POV. - ^theWOLFchild 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

USS Ford

Is USS Ford a legitimate set index? Two of the three entries are partial matches, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

PTMs only apply to disambiguation pages, not set indices. Are these ships ever called "USS Ford"? (such as in the popular press, or by family members, etc) If so, what's the problem? Do we want to hide our ship articles from the readership, like disambiguation pages hide search results from partial matches? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then, should it be formatted like USS Smith, where the partial matches are listed in See also? Or vice versa? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

About SS Pittsburgh

Hello, WikiProject Ships people,
This vessel appears to have had an interesting career. According to the German language Wikipedia article and what I can see in other (mostly unreliable) sources, it was built for the American Line, was operated by the White Star Line and the Red Star Line, and did service with the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine then the RN again. Your thoughts (and references from reliable third-party sources) about this article?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this link works, and you will be able to see Pennland's wartime voyages. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It does, she was also a member of Convoys HX 54, TC 8 and WS 5B. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register entries are linked from here. Mjroots (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for sorting this out so well. pete au aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shirt58: all you need to do now is to incorporate the new material into the article! Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant (1757)

The HMS Brilliant (1757) article is in need of expansion (I'm busy elsewhere). The ship was sold to Sir William James, 1st Baronet and became an East Indiaman, but was wrecked in 1782. Sources available to expand are Eicships, Threedecks and Oceantreasures. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a barnstar in it for someone... Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No barnstar needed. I'll give it a whirl in the next couple of days, but based on those sources only. I have a pretty limited library on the Age of Sail. Llammakey (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Did my best. Needs some fleshing out, but I don't have the sources to do that since those websites really only had the bare bones. Might need a copyedit for any errors or grammatical flow. Llammakey (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looking better now. At least the full history of the ship is now given. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta give credit to Eurylaus who fleshed it out after I was finished and prettied it up. Llammakey (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You added much more of the content than me. Still got a few places to look, like the BNA and sources on Hyde Parker which may have more on his captaincy. Also the service history is presently a list of facts - it needs putting in (appropriately sourced) context. Something for the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Further details of her career might be gleaned from the various editions of Lloyd's List covering her service (Linked from WP:SHIPS/R. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lloyd's List link wasn't there, though I have now added it to the Newspapers section (at present covers 1741-1825).Davidships (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It was there, under shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please Rename Oscar Wilde

would someone please rename MS Oscar Wilde to MV Oscar Wilde? Lugnad (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnad: - any particular reason, both MS and MV are acceptable prefixes. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on this issue? MS seems to be more popular. the adverts for it use neither. MV is used in official circumstances: such as the company annual report,[3] official enquiries[4] and I assume that the captain[5] knows the name of his ship. Lugnad (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet he also knows that the prefix is not part of the official name of the vessel... Tupsumato (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

MV/MS is very much like she/it for ships. Both are valid, and down to the creator's choice. They are not generally changed without very good reason. Mjroots (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the prefix is not part of the official name. I said "used in official circumstances:" and asked "Do we have a policy on this issue?" Lugnad (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"creator's choice." - thank you for that answer. May I now ask if the text of the article should conform to the article title? It seems sensible that it should. This all arose when another editor, not I, changed every "MS" in the article text to "MV". Should we reverse those changes, so that the article text conforms with the article title. Lugnad (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

-  Done Lugnad is correct. A new IP user recently changed every instance of 'MS' to 'MV' through-out the article. (see here and here) They did not provide a source to support the changes or even an edit summary to explain them. The changes put the body of the article in conflict with the title which can only lead to confusion and therefore serve no real purpose. They were of no benefit to the article and have thus been reverted. - ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what Oscar would make of this? "The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it." Lugnad (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell." - ^theWOLFchild 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

“I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning and took out a comma,” he said.

“And in the afternoon?” she asked.

“In the afternoon,” responded Wilde, “– well, I put it back again.” - - Lugnad (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons named her Oscar Wilde (ship, 1987), no prefix problems at all. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Bertha

Can I ask for some help from the experts here. I've just been reading about (and have started an article in my sandbox with the refs) a historic ship but I really don't know how to describe her:

• Is the term scraper or drag boat or whatever most appropriate? (I've never even heard of a vessel like this before)
• What infobox should I use?
• The gross tonnage is given as 60 but what form of tone/tonne should I use in the convert template?
• I'm reading claims that she is "It is the oldest operational steam vessel in Britain" what sort of verification would be needed for that claim?

Any help/advice or edits would be welcome.— Rod ^talk 21:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a type of dredger, the same principle is widely used today in "plough dredging", where a metal scraper on an A-frame is fixed to the stern of a tug or workboat. Bertha seems to have been often described as a "scraper".

Gross tonnage doesn't have conversions as it is not a measure of weight - it is a formula derived originally from a volumetric measure. Use gross tonnage or gross register tonnage according to your sources. It is always spelled "tons".

I think that the sources you are using are fine for the "oldest..." claim. Davidships (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As modern tonnage is dimensionless, I believe it is incorrect to use "tons" to describe gross or net tonnage. However, I'm fairly certain the vessel in question is measured in register tons, at least in older sources. Tupsumato (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all advice. I've added a few more bits and have some more to do. One last question before I move it into article space - should I call it "SS Bertha" as this seems a bit grand & isn't used in sources? It appears the name was never official just "adopted". The Body book says a similar design to "BD6" which became called "Dragon" which was used in Bristol.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My inclination would be Bertha (drag boat), for what most people would call a boat rather than a ship. Incidentally, having reviewed your sources, I don't think that either "grt" or "gt" can be used as they do not specify what is being spoken of. It could also be displacement (ie weight) or, if it goes back to 1844, Builder's Old Measurement. If it cannot be veried suggest just quote "60 tons" with a footnote that the type of ton is not known. Davidships (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is now at Bertha (drag boat) if anyone would like to review/edit further.— Rod ^talk 18:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rodw: Late to the party here, but "Drag boat" may not be the best title here - note where Drag boat redirects to! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I hadn't spotted that one - I can't imagine Bertha with hydroplanes, but if we use Bed leveler I think people might be even more confused. What do you suggest?— Rod ^talk 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're using modern terminology, "Bertha (dredge)" might be possible? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Or "Bertha (dredge boat)" or "Bertha (dredge ship)" - ^theWOLFchild 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer the more usual UK usage "Bertha (dredger)" (which sidesteps the ship v. boat question also). Davidships (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sail-plan and sail troubles

Please look at:

• Talk:Sail-plan#Brig and Brigantine
• Talk:Gaff rig#French Interlanguage link

Thank you. --62.19.46.1 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplication?

Could some of you fine editors please take a look at the Degaussing and Deperming pages please? One is entirely about ships, while the other is split between ships and computers. I'm wondering if some re-arrangement, in the way of splitting and merging, might be in order. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

With current contant a merge would indeed seem in order. Typical example of parallel articles based on the word more prevalent to a US and a UK creating editor (though naughty of the former not to have noticed the latter's earlier one since the word "degaussing" was used). Agree with the IP who raised this in 2014 on Talk:Degaussing. Davidships (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else? - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Added to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. - ^theWOLFchild 05:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

MH370 search finds another 19th century shipwreck

The search for MH370 has found another likely late 19th century shipwreck, 3.7 kilometers down. Stunning photo here (The Guardian).

To my eye it looks somewhat clipperish.

Comparison with Cutty Sark on Google Satellite here (imgur).

Wonder if we'll ever find out what she was.

95.146.115.122 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that - pretty interesting find. But I doubt we'll ever know which ship it is - too many have been lost and nobody's going to fund an expedition to explore it a la Titanic or Bismarck. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Some reports say that it is the barque S.V. Inca, 950 GRT left Callao, west of Lima, en-route to Sydney on 10 March 1911 - Lugnad (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Submarine signalling

I came across submarine signalling in the SS Cap Arcona (1927) article - and found that it is mentioned, unlinked, in many ship articles, but I have found no article explaining what this alternative to radio actually was. Is it hiding in an article somewhere? Davidships (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume that Sonar is intended - - Lugnad (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's for navigation - this is, I think, for communication. Suggested elsewhere that it's Underwater acoustic communication, though that article doesn't really cover this specifically (mind you, I am very out of my technical depth). Davidships (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another stub on a similar topic is Underwater telephone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

HMS Integrity

Currently HMS Integrity links to an article that I believe should be HMCS Integrity. The vessel was a New South Wales colonial vessel. I also note a cutter in 1805 and a rescue tug in 1942 were named HMS Integrity. Could someone please advise of any others so named? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why whould the cutter be Canadian? HMCS is a Canadian prefix. Llammakey (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I could create Integrity (1804 cutter) to remove HMCS confusion. See Elizabeth Henrietta (1816 ship). Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Was this a Royal Navy vessel, or a Revenue Service vessel? If the latter, then HMRC Integrity is the correct title. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The vessel appears to be a colonial ship in service with the NSW Government. In certain documents I have seen it reported as HMS but I dont have my reference books at present as they are in storage pending house construction. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Llammakey: - HMCS here would be "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship", which I believe was used at the time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Bushranger you are correct, HMCS refers to in this instance to "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship". Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Never heard of that. There's either going to have to be a disambig page or a note on the HMCS page for that prefix now. Llammakey (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Saw that there's already one. Llammakey (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Bushranger. See Her Majesty's Ship, and a well-known example is HMCS Protector of 1884. I have come across a wide range of ships operated by colonial administrations described as "His/Her Majesty's Colonial Ship" or "HM Colonial Ship" and sometimes abbreviated HMCS - I doubt whether many flew the white ensign. As for the one in question, I cannot find any contemporary references to her as a "ship"; she seems to be universally referred to as "His Majesty's Colonial Cutter Integrity", and it is not clear which ensign she would have flown. (I suppose that "Integrity Cutter 6. In service 1805-9" briefly listed by Colledge is a different vessel, and not for New South Wales as there is no mention in Australian newspapers.) Davidships (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2010 Colledge also includes "Purch. Australia 1805. Listed until 1810." So this was also an Australian vessel, but not the same as the HMS Integrity article given its date of disappearance. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from a source document: "You will embark on board His Majesty's armed Colonial cutter Integrity..." (Gov. King to Lt. Col Paterson. 1/6/1804). Integrity was commanded by a Royal Navy officer but I doubt there was much of a commissioning ceremony. There's no record of her being referred to as "HM Colonial Ship" and she is too small for that appellation anyway, though we could use it as a standardisation of "Colonial cutter" if preferred. HMCS seems fine if we want to differentiate colony-built vessels from British-built ones, though there's plenty of eighteenth century HMS's that were built in the American colonies but don't use HMCS. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the C/Colonial refers specifically to where they were built, but that they were in the service of a colonial administration. (Thanks for the info from the later Colledge on the 1805 cutter - strange that the Sydney papers apparently failed to mention her at all) Davidships (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, HM Colonial Ship was used by ships owned and operated by a colony naval force: most of the Australian examples were purchased from the British. AFAIK, they flew the colony's flag instead of the White Ensign, and if they left local waters, they had to be recommissioned as British Warships (with HMS prefix and white ensign). It may have been an Australian thing: I've never seen the prefix used elsewhere (but on the other hand, I've never really looked). -- saberwyn 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking the various "list" sources: this vessel is not mentioned by either Winfield ("British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817") or Colledge (the Integrity he refers to is not this vessel). It is mentioned in David Lyons' "Sailing Navy List" but as an unregistered vessel alongside the various prizes taken and condemned without ever entering Navy service. On the basis of which it is separate from the various American-built vessels that were commissioned into the RN before the War of Independence, and are listed as such in all three of Winfield, Colledge and Lyons.

On the strength of this, and given the unlikelihood that so small and remote a craft was ever formally commissioned, I support moving it to HMCS Integrity as a vessel in colonial but not Admiralty service. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to add an entry to ship prefix for HMCS under the UK then? Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's already noted (with ref) on Her Majesty's Ship and listed on the HMCS disambiguation page. But there's no harm in adding it anywhere else UK-related hull codes are listed. - ^theWOLFchild 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Have created list of colonial vessels of New South Wales. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that a single table would be much better, allowing it to be sorted by name, years and type. Davidships (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Done @Davidships:. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In 1804 NSW Governor Philip King prepared a "Statement of H.M. Ships and Colonial Vessels" in service in NSW (source Bladen 1979 Vol. 5, see bibliography in the Integrity article). King recorded:

• Buffalo, Lady Nelson and Supply as RN ships, and
• Francis, Cumberland, Integrity, Resource and Punt as Colonial vessels.
• King also referred one final craft, Investigator, to Admiralty to determine whether it was RN or Colonial.

King's Statement is clear as a reference for the categorisation of Integrity, and is supported by the reference from Lyons mentioned earlier in the thread. Per these sources I've moved the page to HCMS Integrity as suggested somewhere above. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DANFS issues - again

Hey all, I'm having trouble getting DANFS (and even the basic history.navy.mil page) to load - anybody else seeing the same thing? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I get a 502 proxy error for the main page when searching for it through Google and Bing. Should also note that I'm in Canada. Llammakey (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/ is working for me in UK. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Hazegray works for me too, but the actual DANFS is giving me a 502 error (I'm from the US). Parsecboy (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Down for me (in the UK) as well. I had a similar problem a few days ago that seemed to eventually clear itself. Hopefully this latest issue is only temporary.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's now working again.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's back up for me as well. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Miramar Ship Index

Editors can apply for free subscription to the Miramar Ship Index at WP:Miramar - you need only have 500 edits and 6 months of editing experience to be eligible. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I used Miramar to clear up launch date confusion at Bahia-class cruiser and the daughter articles. Very helpful for basic stats. 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing ship class articles

I've observed that the categorization of class articles and ship class categories for US Navy ships of the World War I and subsequent eras is highly inconsistent, and I'm thinking of fixing it. One example is that in many cases the class articles are in, say, World War II cruisers of the United States, but the class categories are not. In many cases the reverse is true, or the category contains only ship articles and no class articles. Should both class articles and their class categories be in the appropriate parent categories? RobDuch (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I thought somebody else would have chimed in on this by now RobDuch. It occurs to me that one issue with placing ship classes into given categories is that not all ships of the class may fit the parent category. For example, it might be problematic to put a ship class into, say, a World War I category, if half the ships in the class were built during the war and half after. This might help explain why there are apparent discrepancies in the categorizations. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Having looked more at what a can of worms this is, I think I'll put it on the back burner for now. RobDuch (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)