Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope

Scope?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Brad (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, what exactly the scope of this project is? In particular, I wanted to clarify that it only covers "ships", and not "watercraft" in general? Covering watercraft more generally seems like a natural extension for this project.. for example, during this proposal for WikiProject Submarines, some editors assumed that submarines were within the scope of WP:SHIPS.

If the scope isn't all "watercraft", then maybe there is interest in expanding its scope to include all watercraft? Mlm42 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A solid scope for this project was never assembled due to lack of participation in the discussion. Essentially we cover commercial and military ocean going ships over 100' in length and any length for military ships. We cover biographies of ship builders and architects but not ship owners. We do not cover ship battles or ship armaments. Those are covered by milhist/maritime warfare and weapons task forces. Expanding the scope of the project to cover bass boats isn't exactly right. A ship is not a boat and a boat is not a ship. Brad (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. But notice my choice of word: "watercraft". A ship is a watercraft. Is there opposition to expanding the scope to include all watercraft - i.e. smaller vessels as well? Mlm42 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a grey area. I think there's been a WP:BOATS project mooted on occasion before, but there never seems to be sufficent interest. And expanding WP:SHIPS to cover Sea-Doos...er...maybe not. But a WP:BOATS would make sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Boats#Oppose as I'm tired of repeating myself ie a boat project is ridiculous. Brad (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't suggesting a WP:BOATS; there reason I came here is because I saw that failed proposal. If there really is opposition to excluding watercraft based on size, then that's fine. But a 100' cut off seems a little arbitrary.. what happens to the articles about vessels that are 95' long? What project are they under? I've also started a discussion at the "Maritime transport task force", to try and clarify their scope as well. Based on the names, it seems to me that "Ships" should be included within "Maritime transport".. Mlm42 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You really need to do more reading on this never ending and drama charged topic. A very elegant suggestion was given here (a maritime project) but all conversation and suggestions were dick-slapped by the 'owner' of the maritime transport task force formerly WP Maritime Trades. Brad (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I'm only trying to help. I wasn't suggesting WP:SHIPS be merged into Maritime transport, since that's obviously a controversial move. I assume you were referring to User:Haus, in your comment? Anyway, I was only pointing out that the term "Maritime transport" includes the concept of "ships".. unless I have misunderstood some subtlty here? And your comments aren't very helpful towards establishing a scope..

I think if we stay cool, then we can sort this out. Mlm42 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this project does cover some of the smaller stuff too. Whether there should be a cut-off at 100'/30m or 100 tons is a matter for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, do I understand correctly in assuming that there is a desire to create a project analogous to "WikiProject Aviation", called something like "WikiProject Maritime", as a child of WP:Transport and as a parent project for WP:SHIPS? (By the way, the word "Maritime" also sounds like it would include Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceans) Mlm42 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no desire to create anything until some rational thought and conversation take place. If things had gone better with maritime transport I could have easily seen this project giving all military ships to milhist/maritime warfare and folding what was left into maritime transport. But a lot of work has gone into this project and it's been a defacto project for military ships. Most of the traffic on this talk page is over military ships. I don't see this project merging easily anywhere at this moment and certainly not on a whim. Brad (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing anything on a whim; if a new project is to be made, then it's probably a good idea to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Here's my understanding: Haus started a discussion expressing his desire to move to a task force of WP:Transport. After two or three days of discussion, during which time a few other ideas were brought to the table, discussion stalled for almost a week. Then Haus moved Maritime Trades to the task force, and Brad, you felt this move was too hasty. I certainly don't think Haus meant to upset anyone.

And as Haus points out, it's nothing that can't be undone. In any case, it certainly doesn't sound like Haus was against the proposal to make a bigger project. Let me ask this: Do you think it would be better to have a "WikiProject Maritime transport" instead of the "Maritime transport task force"? If so, then this could be accomplished with a relatively straight-forward move. Mlm42 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

Before charging off with new projects, names or mergers we should be looking at definitions of maritime, boat, and ship. Wording and definition is a bit important here so that the average editor can grasp a scope. Afterward it can be decided what to merge or what to rename or move. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a ship, what is a boat?

I think the crux of the matter is that this WP needs to decide where a line is drawn between ships and boats. Such a line could be drawn by length [at say 100' (30m)] or by weight [at say 100 Tons (GT/GRT/BOM or whatever quoted)]. Once this has been decided, then it will be easier to assess the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The 100/100 guideline is what I've been adhering to for quite some time now. Brad (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

100/100, unless the ship is a military type primarily notable for its military service? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose a definition of what a "ship" is, is good to include in the article ship (if well referenced, of course!), and the same for "boat"; but these definitions don't have to correspond to the scope of this project. The scope of a WikiProject is whatever its members decide it is (and it doesn't have to be extremely precise).

Fundamentally, a WikiProject is a group of editors with common goals. So if you guys want to use the 100/100 rule for the scope, then that's perfectly fine; it should probably be included on the project's main page, so you don't get confused editors like me. Mlm42 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mlm42, we are not about to redefine what a ship is in the ship article. What we need to establish is where WP:SHIPS gives way to WP:BOATS, then the proposal above can be given better consideration. Currently, we cover many smaller boats such as Mystery, Maud etc. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, “ship includes every description of vessel used in navigation”.[1] The Historic Ships Committee have designated a vessel below 40 tons and 40 ft in length as a boat.[2]. US codes are similar to the Merchant Shipping Act.[3] I have always understood that a ship is any vessel which cannot be carried on another vessel. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So USS Cole is a boat then? Mjroots (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the RAN, a boat is a vessel that is intended to be launched from another vessel, not merely one that is transportable as cargo. The only exception I can think of is the submarine, which is always a boat. Rumiton (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here once again is another trap we fall into when people start pointing to outside sources much like the US Navy style guide thread below. Wikipedia has its own style guide and so should wiki projects. The whole point of this discussion section is to establish a scope for this project. Brad (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe it would be useful to add to the first paragraph of the project page a sentence like "For us, a ship is any vessel which is over 100 feet long or weighs over 100 tons." Is that fair? Mlm42 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer to this project, I rarely wade into discussions. However, this issue has been bothering me since I first learned of WP:SHIPS. The project page needs a Scope note. Period. It looks like it used to have one but it no longer does. I raised the issue in a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats. The current scope guidelines of this project seem to be "If it looks like a ship, swims like a ship, and quacks like a ship, then it probably is a ship." The most helpful discussion I have found can be read here in the Archives. I'm not offering an opinion on what the scope should be; I just want there to be an "official" Scope note on the project page. —Diiscool (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the previous scope discussions I've started have been intended to make an official scope to post on the main page. Without any resolution as to a scope there is no official scope to put on the main page. I guess I'll just make something up and get it over with. Brad (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Has an official scope been established for ship v boat?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the scope of the project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope). It may even be a good idea to include this directly on the main project page. Mlm42 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New project scope page

@ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Project Scope. It probably needs more work but it's a good start for now. I've linked it to the main page and the project sidebar. Comments welcome. Brad (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from scope talk page

Much of the content of this page has yet to achieve consensus IMO. Certainly I think some of the statements could use further discussion. Are we sure ship owners should not be included? I can't think of many reasons why they should not. I'm also not altogether happy with the notion of an arbitrary cut-off of 100 feet/100 tons. They are a couple of concerns that immediately come to mind. Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the cut-off why WP:BOATS was proposed? 184.144.164.14 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I've tried 2 or 3 times to get a consensus from ships editors and no one wanted to discuss; I finally went ahead and did one myself. Nothing is set in stone here but this page is reflecting several past conversations that were had on the topic plus what has been a daily practice for quite some time now. Brad (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a cut-off somewhere between ships and boats. 100ft/100t seems to have broad consensus. 100ft means we don't get many of the smaller pleasure yachts seen on large inland rivers and lakes. 100t means we do cover many of the smaller historic sailing vessels. Of course, 100ft/100t is not a sole limit, as there are/were commissioned naval vessels which fall below this, but are still under the remit of WP:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's largely a philosophical issue. I tend to the view that anything nautical should probably come under the remit of Wikiships. I mean, theoretically some nautical topics only deal indirectly with ships as a topic, but from a practical POV, there has never been enough interest to create viable subprojects, so it seems to me the sensible approach is to deal with it all at this project. I don't feel that strongly about it though - as long as we're not going to treat this guideline as "set in stone", to borrow Brad's phrase, because at some stage we may want to revisit one or two of these guidelines. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this discussion should probably be on the main project page. Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of this issue has taken place many times on the main project talk page. This is a good location for further discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to jump into this one without knowing more of the history, but at the risk of covering old ground, I have a reservation and a suggestion. The reservation is that the length and tonnage are too large to include some historic (mostly sail) vessels that clearly were more than boats. The suggestion, why not include anything with an Official Number - ie for the US, anything in the Annual List of Merchant Ships or its successor, and similarly for comparable lists of other nations.Dankarl (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved the conversation here. Right now there are comments being left in three places. Too spread out. Brad (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dankarl that the length and tonnage limits are somewhat arbitrary, I know of a number of historic steamships that fail one or both of the criteria. I guess as long as we don't treat these numbers as absolutes they shouldn't cause too many problems. The guideline may need a tweak at some point though. Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Large sailing vessels

Good start on scope page. Two comments re: sailing vessels: Could we add "Large sailing vessels" as being in scope? And could we add "WikiProject Sailing" as a related project on our home page? Djembayz (talk)

Can you explain what a "Large sailing vessel" is? Being vague is how we get into trouble. Brad (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Large-- starts about 50-70 ft., really kicks in at 100 ft. If it's too big to singlehand, because you need crew to help with sails, and it's not a racing yacht, it's large. Does 70-80 ft. work for our purposes? Djembayz (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the guideline at 100/100 does not mean something at 99ft isn't allowed. The 100/100 cut off leaves room for interpretation like allowing Virginia (pinnace) when it would otherwise be excluded. If we lower the official bar to 75/75 or even 50/50 then it won't be long before we're forced to make exceptions for ships that are less than 50/50 and so on. Next thing you know we'd have jet skis in our scope. Brad (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Brad. What the guideline is saying is that if 100/100 is met, then the vessel is within scope, if 100/100 is not met, then the vessel may still be within scope, but other factors need to be taken into account. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Navy, shipping, cruise line articles

My next inquiry is if we should have in our scope:

• Articles like US Navy, Royal Navy etc. We have some of them under scope currently but wonder if they're correct. (Covered by Milhist/maritime)
• Articles about cruise lines and shipping companies (Covered by Transport/maritime transport) Brad (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bah, I get so tired of these definitional debates :/ Off the top of my head, I would say, cruise lines and shipping companies - maybe, US Navy, Royal Navy - no. But I might find it difficult to provide an appropriate rationale. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC

Stone frigates

Are stone frigates within our scope? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how "stone" the "frigate" is. ;) At least three landlocked "ships" have been scoped for some time... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We have not covered stone frigates in the past though I'm sure you could find a few articles tagged incorrectly. Brad (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)