Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

HMS Donovan (F161)

I've requested that this article be moved to HMS Empire Battleaxe, reasons given on the talk page. Article needs reassessment as it is definitely not a stub. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete “Cold War” categories for merchant/passenger ships?

Could the categories Category:Cold War merchant ships and Category:Cold War passenger ships be deleted as unused and superflous? There are only about 10 ships in each category over 9 countries, or only 1 to 4 ships per country in each category.

This category was to cover the period 1945 to 1990 or 1991 but obviously most merchant/passenger ships for the period are in the ordinary or current category.

Then the “Cold War ….. ships” categories would be used for naval ships only. Some merchant ships may be included in the “auxiliary” categories if avaliable or in the reserve for for war purposes. Hugo999 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem with their deletion. With such a loosely defined era (as opposed to WWI, going from strictly 1914–1918) and the lack of a total mobilization (as opposed to WWII, for example), neither category seems like a good idea. A ship like SS Mayaguez, to pick a member of Category:Cold War merchant ships of the United States, while technically a merchant ship, was actually serving more in the role of an auxiliary ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see some point perhaps in the Cold War naval categories, but not much for the merchant/pass cats. So I don't think I'd be bothered much if the latter were deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with deleting them either. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm in favor of retaining Category:Cold War naval ships and subcats. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Project "Did you know?" update

WikiProject Ships has now exceeded 500 articles featured on the main page as a part of the "Did you know?" feature. The 500th article added to our project list of DYKs is the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Sea Cloud (WPG-284) which appeared on the main page on 18 May 2009. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category rename proposal

I thought project-tagged categories would show up in the Article Alerts page, which is why I hadn't posted something sooner, but there is a rename proposal for Category:Canadian Pacific Railway steamships to be renamed to Category:Ships of Canadian Pacific to bring the category name in line with other categories in the parent category of Category:Ships by company. All editors are welcome to comment at the discussion on the categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ship categorization

I've just created Gazelle class light cruiser and found the current categorization scheme perplexing. Right now, a ship class is in Category:Cruisers of Germany, Category:Cruisers of the Kaiserliche Marine, Category:World War I cruisers of Germany, Category:Ships of the German Imperial Navy, Category:Cruiser classes. In any number of these categories ship classes are intermingled with individual ships, which doesn't seem right. I'd like to propose a streamlined concept, applicable to other ship types:

Ships of Germany
- Ships of Germany by era
  - World War I ships of Germany
  - World War II ships of Germany
  - etc...
- Ships of Germany by function
  - Naval ships of Germany
    - Battleships of Germany
    - Cruisers of Germany
      - World War I cruisers of Germany
        Individual ships, but NOT classes
      - World War II cruisers of Germany
      - Individual ship classes, but NOT ships unless unique types
  - etc...

This scheme would eliminate all the "of the Kaiserliche Marine", "of the German Imperial Navy" etc categories as superfluous. So, under the new scheme, Gazelle class light cruiser would be categorized under Category:Cruisers of Germany, while an individual ship of that class would be categorized under Category:World War I cruisers of Germany and Category:Gazelle class cruisers (in most cases). Mackensen (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that warship articles tend to be overcategorised and that the category structure is complex. I attempted a similar reorganisation of categories related to the Royal Australian Navy and the Colonial navies of Australia a little while back (although mine was admittedly aimed at depopulating Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Naval ships of Australia). I took a different approach to the one you proposed - I created subcats by navy for each type of ship, and populated those with the individual ships (i.e. Category:Royal Australian Navy frigates, which contains all individual frigates and is categorised in Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy and Category:Frigates by navy). Ship articles are also categorised by class, and by any other relevant categories (date of launch, shipbuilder, fate, etc. I've avoided "nation + type + conflict" or "navy + type + conflict" as in most cases there are not enough RAN ship articles to justify such a category) Articles and categories for classes were categoriesed by their type (i.e. Bathurst class corvette and the related category are in category:corvette classes and category:mine warfare classes) but not in any "by navy" or "by nation" category. -- saberwyn 09:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

beware because Cruisers of Germany can include a cruiser built by Germany for another nation, and not used by the German Navy. Have a look at the category:ships of the Royal Navy structure and eg HMS Danae (D44)'s categories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know (eek). I also looked at the categories for Danae class cruiser and they seemed much more straightforward, although it means keeping the Kaiserliche Marine type categories. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the KM categories, with more of them (eg Category:battlecruisers of the Kaiserliche Marine) the ships will be sorted more effectively. However a rename to "cruisers of the Imperial Germany Navy" or vice versa might be appropiate for consistency. we could use a third opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ships listed at TfD

Template:Ship and others such as HMS, SMS, SS have been proposed for substitution and deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Ship and its myriad wrapper templates. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That nomination went down in flames. Now closed and kept. --Brad (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see it burned quickly. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. What a ridiculous idea - I mean, it's used on about 14,500 articles. Martocticvs (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have said "Sank like the Titanic" to keep things in perspective :) --Brad (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good topic nomination for "O'Brien class destroyers"

The following articles:

are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Helgoland class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Helgoland class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy ships

The Air France Flight 447 article has spawned a number of articles on Brazilian Navy ships. I'm not sure that the titles are completely in accordance with WP:NC-S and they are all a bit stubby atm. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently created examples are:

The convention used here seems to have been to prefix the ship name with the letter denoting ship type. (eg. Caboclo is a corvette, Constituição a frigate, etc). The same thing is seen on NAe São Paulo, where NAe denotes Navio-Aeródromo, ie. "Aircraft carrier". Under our conventions should they be renamed Brazilian corvette Caboclo (V19), Brazilian frigate Constituição (F42), etc? Benea (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NT Almirante Gastão Motta (G23) is another article for consideration. Benea (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with those names. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Given existing articles like Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes and Brazilian battleship São Paulo, I'd agree. Another question: F Bosísio (F48) is the former HMS Brazen (F91); each article is currently an infobox and a one-line stub. Any objections here to redirecting Brazen to Bosísio? From what's in the articles, neither name seems more notable than the other, so I'm thinking the article should be at the current name. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the renaming of articles to "Brazilian foo bar" per naming convention. As for Brazen/Bosísio combining into one article at the current name seems the way to go... if it later turns out that the Brazen name is more suitable or that the histories are complex to the point where separate articles are required, appropriate action can be taken then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazen served on the Armilla patrol and received the Battle honour "Kuwait 1991" for the Gulf War; her helicopter was in action against fast patrol boats in January '91. I found that relatively quickly - there may be more to write about her including other deployments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem keeping Brazen and Bosísio separate if each is notable. I was mainly asking since (at the time, at least) each 'article' was a two-sentence stub. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Id support keeping Brazen separate as well. She was Prince Andy's ship for a while, ran aground in the Atlantic, and caused some mild political controversy over shipping fertiliser which led to questions in the Commons! On a more serious note she was also the target of the only attempted airborne attack on the fleet during the Gulf War. I'll try and add a little more to the article when I have the time. Benea (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

MS Freedom of the Seas & Lifeboats

The article MS Freedom of the Seas asserts that it can carry "can accommodate over 4,300 passengers and 1,300 crew" and has 30 lifeboats. Checking the sister ships articles (MS Liberty of the Seas & MS_Independence_of_the_Seas) the exact figure is "4,370 passengers served by 1,360 crew" for a total of 5,730 passengers and crew. Simple mathematics indicates that each lifeboat would have to accomodate 191 people - can this possibly be correct? Are the lifeboats this large? Are there additional liferafts on board not mentioned in the article? Or do these ships have insufficient lifeboat capacity for a full complement? (Shades of RMS Titanic there.) Exxolon (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal requirement that passenger vessels must have lifeboat capacity for 100% of those aboard. (This figure rises to 200% capacity for cargo vessels, tankers, etc). There is also usually a provision in law for providing liferafts so that if a number of the lifeboats are rendered inaccessible or unusable, liferaft capacity is still sufficient for 100% of the ship's capacity. I would assume that liferafts are not being included in the total, and ship's tenders, which can double as lifeboats may not be either. It would depend on how the company presents these statistics though, as to what the figure of 30 lifeboats actually refers. On a modern vessel like Freedom of the Seas though I'm fairly sure it would be unthinkable for there to be less than 100% capacity. Benea (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New ship "classes" being created.

Archimedean (talk · contribs) has been creating new ship classes that I'm quite sure have never existed. Most of these have been for early ships of the US Navy when they weren't designating classes. Anyhow, these edits look strange to me as they don't seem to have any merit or usefulness. --Brad (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits to "List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy"

During May, several editors made some pretty significant changes to the the format of the List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy, making the text size significantly smaller. For me (and my "old" eyes), the text is almost too small to be useful. I know that list is a behemoth of an article that could probably use reworking in general, but reducing the text size does not significantly change the page size or load times. What do others think about this? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that making such a blanket change is not helpful. It's certainly less readable. I'd revert.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It also affects "List of" amphibious warfare, patrol vessels, and I suspect other large lists of USN vessels. Looks like a new editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had that article in mind for a long time and it's horrendously long and full of red links. Somehow that list should be broken up in some manner. My opinion is that in its current state the article is hardly helpful to the casual user. --Brad (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy & MV Patris

The Cyclone Tracy article states that MV Patris was used as a floating hotel after the cyclone had struck Darwin. Can anyone confirm whether this is the correct ship or not? Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle honours in ship articles

Is there any guideline on the listing and inclusion of battle honours in Commonwealth ship articles? I know that all battle honours associated with a ship's name are forever carried by all ships of that name, but I've always been under the impression that only those awarded to a particular vessel should be listed in that ship's article.

As an example:

the shipindex HMAS Sydney lists the eight battle honours associated with the name.
the article on the aircraft carrier HMAS Sydney (R17) lists the two honours earned by that ship, but not the five honours inherited from the two previous Sydneys, or the honour awarded to the Sydney that came after.

I was cleaning up the articles for the new British Type 45 destroyers (prompted by an attempt to move articles in Category:Ships of the Royal Navy out of the main cat and into subcategories), and part of this cleanup included removing the list of inherited battle honours for each ship from the infobox. The honours for HMS Dragon (D35) were then restored by Mjroots, who appears to be under the opposite impression: as all of the honours are forever carried by all ships of the name, all honours should be listed in all ship articles of that name.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? Is there a guideline or a consensus on which way it should be? -- saberwyn 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have also posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force‎#Battle honours in ship articles. To avoid confusion of duplication of discussion, I suggest that all comments be made there.

List of classes articles

User:mynameinc has been making massive additions to at least 2 lists of USN ship classes articles. On List of submarine classes of the United States Navy, this has included adding several tabled sections. THe problem is that each entry has annotations that take up several lines in the narrow columns, so that on my 19 inch monitor at 1024X768, it only shows 3-4 lines. (It's even worse on my 14-inch laptop at 800x600. On List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy, photos are included with the tables, thought the text coloumn is a little wider here. Both pages have the columns arranged by period, meaning you have to scroll through several tables to find a particular class; I prefered the straigh alphabetical lists. On the carriers list page, he has included history paragrphs for each section. The main problem with with his edits to both pages is that they are no longer strictly lists pages anymore. In his favor, the info he has added is very good, and well-cited (26 refs on the sub page, 47 on the carrier page). Perhaps we could spin off his new additions to another title for each article (perhaps not a list page), and restore the original list format to the existing pages. I'm posting here for convienence and initial comments, and have not contacted the user as yet, as I want to see what others thinks first. (I'm fine with someone else contacting him first.) - BillCJ (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I prefer mynameinc's tables to the straight list - they look nicer, and have more information. I do think though that the table in the sub class article could be tweaked a bit - for one thing, there are long and repetitious notes about "pig boats" for class after class, for another, there is absolutely no need for a separate "reference" column. I think my only other comment would be that I think the escort carrier classes should be under WWII and not in a separate section. Apart from that I think the changes are probably an improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Help request Corwin

Please take a look at Talk:USRC Thomas Corwin (1876) USRC Corwin=SS Corwin?Dankarl (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Peer Reviews

There are five peer reviews currently ongoing at MILHIST under our scope which I have just populated our review section with after it had gone dormant.

Any reviews would be appreciated by the editors who requested these reviews, two are FAs that are having a review for routine maintenance. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Essex class--long hull vs. short hull

User:Magus732 and I have been discussing the fact that many of the Essex class carrier pages include an passage that says something like Ship X "was one of the 'long-hulled' Essex-class ships, considered by some authorities to be a separate class, the Ticonderoga class." Personally, I think that's wrong. The Essex class article states: "The U.S. Navy never held any institutional difference between the long-hull and short-hull Essex ships, and postwar refits and upgrades were applied to both groups equally."

What sources do state is that long hull ships were sometimes referred to as Ticonderoga class ships. It's pretty clearly an informal identification. I'd like to revise the articles to state, with appropriate citation, that long hull ships were sometimes informally known as Ticonderoga class ships or long hull ships.

There's also a footer for these articles that includes a separate Ticonderoga subclass, which I personally think is fine. Orpy15 (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging the Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier article into Essex class aircraft carrier was my first major attempt at an article merger, performed just 2 months after I joined WP in 2006. I tried to correct as many of the ship articles as I could, but unfortunately I did not finish the job, having got caught up in other WP editing tasks. I agree with Opry's view that the Ticonderogas are not called a separate class from the rest of the Essexes by the USN, though they are considered that by some sources. Opry is probably correct in pointing out elsewhere that they were more correctly long-bowed, but long-hulled is the term used in most reputable sources. And while I totally agree with the quote from the article on the USN's position, it does need to be properly sourced, as do any claims that other sources call them the Ticonderoga class. As to the Footer, I'd prefer to list them all numerically, perhaps with an asterisk to denote the long-hulls. - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BillCJ, for the most part... I just didn't think it could be rationally changed by 2 people with differing opinions... Magus732 (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is to put a longer explanation of the issue in the Essex class page, and take it out of the individual ship articles, where I think it would be sufficient just to identify the ships as long hull or short hull. As for the footer, that's a good idea, I just don't know how to do it. I think I can figure out how to take out the part that says (Ticonderoga Class), but I don't have the skills to do more than that. If you can fix the footer BillCJ, that would be great. Orpy15 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me... Having not known the USN's position on the "class" differences, I was only able to use the information I had to work with... Magus732 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for merge

There is a list of articles here showing what needs to be merged in case anyone is interested. Some of them date back to 2007. --Brad (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SS Orduna

I would value the input from people involved with this project. I removed some information that another editor had added to the article on the SS Orduna, because it was about one particular journey, which I felt could be better detailed elsewhere - although I did leave a one-sentence summary about it. The other editor just undid the changes. I have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:SS_Orduna and would value the input of those who are involved in the Ships WikiProject, as I feel that I am correct and the other editor feels that he is! Not being a contributor to this Project, I thought it best to involve you and let you make the decision. Thanks in advance. PhantomSteve (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

– Article redrafted by Benea in accordance with discussion on Orduna's talk page. PhantomSteve (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

National Historic Fleet, Core Collection

National Historic Fleet, Core Collection has been listed AfD here —G716 <^T·_C> 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cruise ship class names

A proposal was recently raised on an article about a class of cruise ships, Spirit class, requesting it be moved to Spirit Class (discussion here). I added the alternative Spirit class cruise ship, based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship classes. Looking through Category:Cruise ship classes I see that there are a large number of cruise ship class articles titled in a variety of styles. Should they all be moved to conform with our guidelines, in the format 'xxx class cruise ship'? Benea (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so. -- saberwyn 09:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with standardizing the cruise ship class naming. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

MV Balmoral

MV Balmoral appears to be a copyvio of the MV Balmoral history webpage. On the other hand, that website may have copied Wikipedia. Can someone experienced in these matters take a look please? Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The page at the channelimages link you give was last modified on 2 June but that doesn't tell us how long the page has been there. Interestingly the WP article was expanded a lot by channelimages (talk · contribs) a year ago. I think the WP article came first but this is still no sure thing. --Brad (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaiser class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Kaiser class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Endeavour naming debate

There's a naming discussion under way at Talk:HM Bark Endeavour about the most appropriate article name for this vessel - "HM Bark Endeavour", "HMS Endeavour" or "HMS Endeavour (1768)." The issue was also previously discussed at Peer review.

All views and opinions welcome. Euryalus (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we now assume that a consensus has been reached, and move it back to HMS Endeavour? Benea (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to but the discussion continues to rage at Talk:HM Bark Endeavour. Any other opinions welcome, as there's not presently an outcome in sight. Euryalus (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - moved back to HMS Endeavour by User:Hesperian, as there was no consensus for a variation to WP:SHIPNAME in this instance. Thanks to all who contributed on either side oft he debate. Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Goldsborough (DDG-20)

Hello, WikiProject Ships. You have new messages at Talk:USS Goldsborough (DDG-20).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cra sh Underride 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Labouchere - an RMS?

In editing William Alexander Mouat just now I came across mention of the Labouchere having carried Her Majesty's Mail.....does that automatically mean it would get the "RMS" designation? I.e. should the article-name be changed from the (paddle-steeamer) dab to RMS Labouchere?? Also there are two vessels the Mary Dare and Marten, mentioned in the article that need articles; the Marten I've put off for a logn time myself, being distracted elsewhere and not really a ship-article kind of guy, but it belongs in a series and article on Steambosts of the Thompson and Shuswap.Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Article request notice

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Article_request_-_the_.22British_Columbia_Navy.22_-_Subs_CC1_.26_CC2.Skookum1 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
- This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
- This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
- There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
The data is now retained indefinitely.
The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Category rename proposal

There's a proposal to rename Category:Whiting class seaplane tenders to Category:Kenneth Whiting class seaplane tenders. All editors are welcome to comment at the discussion at the Categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reassement needed

I've been working on the SS Canadiana article and would like someone to reassess it. It's currently assigned stub class. Thaks! Shinerunner (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice little article, I assessed it as B-class. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work Haus. Shinerunner (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified ships

In the process of adding IMO numbers to more than 2,000 seagoing ships on Commons, I found a lot of ships I couldn't identify. So I added these ships to the Commons:category:Unidentified ships. Can shiplovers and/or specialists help to identify these ships? By name or IMO number. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reassessment

I have another article, USS Sable (IX-81), if someone could take a look and reassess. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I assessed as B-class. Please put future reassessment requests here. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the mixup, I would have seen the correct spot for requests if I had read to the bottom of the page. :) Thanks for looking it over article. Shinerunner (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Lexington class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Lexington class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

New user's first article needs rescue

A new user created USS Coronado (LCS-4) today, but it has no references at all, and looks like the stub was copied exactly from a press release. I'm wondering if anyone would like to salvage this? Background, Coronado is the name of the fourth Littoral combat ship. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can, but some help would be appreciated from those who have worked on the other LCS, since most of the press release seems to still be extant in the prose of the stub. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up further and added more refs. It's a shame that an article in its infancy with plenty of references available is assembled with a manure launcher. I subscribe to the Navy News Service and receive daily email updates of new releases so when a ship is named, laid down or commissioned etc I'm right there with the refs. --Brad (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Blücher now open

The A-Class review for SMS Blücher is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy / Swedish Navy (HMS)

I have been looking at some articles on the Swedish Navy and ive come across a problem and I was wondering what people here thought about it. I have looked in the archives of this project but not found anything (perhaps I have missed it or has been debated elsewhere because i would of thought this had come up before).

The problem is the Swedish Navy uses the same prefix as the Royal Navy (HMS), Now on the Swedish Navy page it says:

“In Swedish Royal Swedish Navy vessels are given the prefix "HMS," short for Hans/Hennes Majestäts Skepp (His/Her Majesty's Ship). In English, the prefix "HSwMS" (for "His Swedish Majesty's Ship") is used; HMS is used for Royal Navy vessels.”

In Sweden they certainly use HMS and plenty of sources back this up, but there is also sources like on a NATO presentation about an operation that HSwMS is used in English for international operations (at the very least). [2]

At the moment there doesn’t seem to be a clear policy on wikipedia about how to handle this problem. For example HMS is used most of the time on articles about different types of ships like here Stockholm class corvette and there are single articles about Swedish ships using HMS like HMS Visby (K31). But theres also a case where HSwMS is used to list all the ships at Landsort class mine countermeasures vessel .

In my opinion using HMS on the English wikipedia leads to confusion with the Royal Navy and as there is a clear and acceptable alternative I think HSwMS should be used, but I am obviously rather biased on this matter so i understand if people disagree. At the very least there needs to be a single form used through out wikipedia for Swedens ships, if that just means changing the ships on the mine countermeasure vessel article to HMS then that is better than no change at all.

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur both that there needs to be consistency here, and that the Swedish ships should use another prefix other than "HMS" on English WP. "HSwMS" works for me, but there may be another prefix that might be more workable too. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Some food for thought: Norway also uses "HMS", but on en.wiki we use "HNoMS", as in HNoMS Eidsvold. Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange enough, they don't use HMS as a prefix in Norway today. At no.wiki they have an article about the prefix KNM, short for Kongeleg Norsk Marine (Royal Norwegian Navy) that is the term used locally since 1946. In that article one mentions that HNoMS is the officially used prefix for Norweigan ships in English. Steinberger (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to invent its own designations, which would go in the direction of WP:OR. The name of Swedish naval vessels includes "HMS" since this is a well established acronym for Hans Majestäts Skepp. If there are several HMS XXX vessels of different nationality this reasonably has to be handled as all other cases of Disambiguation, by using HMS XXX (Sweden), just as Swedish ships that have existed under the same name are given titles like HMS Belos (A214). And seriously, having a user whose userpage in its entirety reads "Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! God save the Queen!" commenting on non-British uses of British acronyms doesn't look that good in my eyes. I recommend a close reading of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

lol i pointed out very clearly in my original comment "but I am obviously rather biased on this matter so i understand if people disagree" and i ended by saying at the very least there needs to be a single form on english wikipedia for it (which isnt the case right now).

I did not invent the term HSwMS, it is used by NATO. The Sweden Navy article says in English its used, so it is certainly not Original research.

As for my userpage, is there any real difference between that and someone who has those babel boxes saying - This user supports the monarchy, this user is proud to be British , this user is from the United Kingdom. Is there anything wrong with that? My name and my userpage help show my loyalties, i would rather everyones loyalties be out in the open for all to see than hidden so we dont know if they are pushing their own POV or not. Oh and i even avoided posting this matter on the Royal Navy page to try and reduce the number of British editors involved in responding to this problem, i only posted at Ship prefix Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) and Swedish navy. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we should not be using the same prefix for Royal Navy and Swedish Navy ships, as that will inevitably lead to confusion. Not sure what the best solution is, but one alternative might be to use a combination of styles that are already in use. So for HMS Visby mentioned above, we might, for example, name the article "Swedish corvette HMS Visby". Gatoclass (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

←In a perfect world, both navies would have a distinct prefix and this wouldn't be an issue. Given that this is not the case, here are some observations on why I support the current consensus of using HMS:

HSwMS

NATO prefix. However, the current Wikipedia consensus for other navies (Estonian Navy, Portuguese Navy) is to use the local prefix when it differs from the NATO prefix. Using HMS for Swedish vessels matches this pattern, and already seems to be the current consensus. (I'd never even heard of the "HSwMS" prefix prior to this discussion.)
- Note that the NATO prefixes for navies that do not internally use prefixes seem to bear no weight for Wikipedia naming conventions. So, for example, "BNS" for Belgian Navy ships, FS for French Navy, FGS for Deutsche Marine, HS for Hellenic Navy, and ITS for Marina Militare, are eschewed in favor of the "[Country] [ship type] [ship name] ([pennant])" naming style.
Of the approximately 24 hits for "HSwMS" at Google books with a snippet preview, only 14 are clearly referring to Swedish vessels which, in my view, is not indicative of widespread usage
I'd like to see some stronger evidence rather than just that the English-language Wikipedia article "Swedish Navy" (as referenced by the original poster) says it.

HMS

What the Swedish Navy calls its ships in the Swedish language. For point of comparison, many other navies' prefixes are what is used in the local language: ARC for Armada de la Republica de Colombia (Colombian Navy vessels); ORP for Okręt Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Polish Navy vessels)
Google searches for two distinct Swedish ship names—Nils and Uppland—show a decided 25-to-1 (or higher, perhaps) web bias in favor of the continued use of HMS. In the case of Uppland, searching for "HMS Uppland" (in quotes) returns 'about 358' results, while "HSwMS Uppland" returns 14. The numbers for Nils were 31 and 1, respectively.
For what it's worth, HMS is the only Swedish prefix listed at ship prefix (as of this writing)

Also, are there many Swedish and British naval ships with the same name? It can't be more than a handful, and with year and/or pennant number disambiguators, I'd contend that we'd never even have to resort to "HMS Shipname (1845 Swedish ship)"/"HMS Shipname (1845 British ship)" style of disambiguation. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed HSwMS to HMS on the Landsort class mine countermeasures vessel article which i mentioned before so atleast there is a single method across wikipedia now for talking about Swedish ships. I still think its rather confusing to have two different navies using the same titles, if someone made a bot to change something about Royal Navy vessels its not hard to imagine them accidently making changes to the Swedish ships too. Anyway if the Swedish government / navy do not recognise the term HSwMS in English and its only certain countries and NATO i agree we probably shouldnt use that, although i do feel some method of telling the two apart in the title (for example HMS Visby (K31) and HMS Ledbury (M30)) would be justified but im not sure how. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52)

It seems as though a new editor which served on the USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52) has stumbled upon our article on the ship and has added many references as well as operational history. The only problem is that the history is all in a bulleted list format instead of encyclopedic prose. I have cleaned-up the list best I can, but the article could use lots of help since a bulleted list is not the most attractive thing to see and I wouldn't know where to begin with this type of vessel (since I normally stick to capital ships). -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The new editor has again gone at it, this time adding in lots of referenced information about the capabilities of the class of vessel, which would be better suited in a class article, except there isn't one. I am of no help here, so I'm asking for someone to take this under their wing, because it is just going to turn into a class article with the POV of a former crewmember instead of an encyclopedic article. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He is adding referenced material so I don't see the harm outside of the information being misplaced. Shouldn't be too difficult to roll the information into a class article. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I converted the bullets points to prose and one floating table. Creating a class article from the Salvor's equipment manifest seems like a stretch: I think Grapple is in the same class and I recall thinking that their rigs looked noticeably different. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Endeavour now open

The A-Class review for HMS Endeavour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Kaiser class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Kaiser class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifeboats

Is there a standard way of naming lifeboat articles? We have RNLB Mary Stanford and Mary Stanford Lifeboat. Very different stories - but the same name. I have just added their ON numbers ClemMcGann (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Cockchafer (1915) - quick response required

This article was submitted for DYK and is due to expire. Could I please get some feedback on whether the source on which the article is based is reliable or not? The source is http://www.hmsfalcon.com/ Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would pass WP:RS or WP:V, as being a personal website, apparently not produced by 'an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I can't particularly see any reason to doubt what the website says, and it does include a bibliography, but I'm guessing that it probably wouldn't pass a strict interpretation of the guidelines. Just my opinion. Benea (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benea, however I think an alt hook about the ship being used to help a regent or Iraq escape an assassination attempt would be interesting and presumably well-sourced. Haus^Talk 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue got resolved, he changed the hook and added a couple of refs, thanks guys. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

MOS is questioning use of "The" before ship's name in articles

FYI, there is currently a discussion that ends with a general guideline and an open question at the Wikipedia main Manual of Style: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of the article before the name of a ship. The statement is:

1. There is no article before the name of a ship (xxx) when it is grammatically incorrect (example: "HMS xxx", never "the HMS xxx"), 2. It seems to be customary to omit the article before the name of ship of the US Navy at least in official use (I agree with OLEF642 that sailors use the article, i.e. "I served on the Lexington"), thus "USS xxx" may be preferable over "the USS xxx". 3. Otherwise it appears that the article is generally used, thus "the Santa Maria", "the Pequod", "the Titanic", etc. The article is, of course, always included when part of the name. Is this correct?

I am not exactly sure what proper style answers this project would like to have published covering the entire English Wikipedia project so I am posting the text and link to the discussion above. Members may want to weigh in before an errant guideline is published that applies to Wikipedia as a whole. Sswonk (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Graney class submarine

Please, look {{Graney class submarine}}. Whether correctly I have written heading?--Andrey! 12:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When I read: Project 885 Yasen (Graney) is a new Russian nuclear multipurpose attack submarine class. I'm left to wonder if the class is named Yasen or Graney? And what does Project 885 refer to? I did some clean up and reassessed the article too. --Brad (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian project name is Проект 885 "Ясень" which transliterates as Project 885 "Yasen'". "Ясень" translates as "Graney" and NATO codename for this class is Graney class SSN. So i think that Graney class submarine is a suitable name for this article and template. --Rave (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article title is fine but the lead section of the article is what needs work. It should probably read something like this:

“

Graney class submarine (Russian: Проект 885 "Ясень") is a new Russian nuclear multipurpose attack submarine class.

”

--Brad (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. --Rave (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Chesapeake?

After USS Chesapeake (1799) was captured by Shannon she was taken into RN service for about 7 years as HMS Chesapeake. Is there anyone who could fill in her RN service record? I suppose if it's not very noteworthy there might be no reason to include it. What do Winfield and others have to say? --Brad (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Date for a ship better known by its second name

I'm starting to think about an article about the Klondike Gold Rush ship SS Portland. Will need to distinguish from SS Portland (1889) wrecked 1898. The "gold rush" Portland was built as the Haytien Republic (1885), sold and renamed sometime between 1892 and 1895. Not well known under the former name though apparently a notorious smuggler. So for the title is she Portland (1885) or something else?Dankarl (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

SS Portland (1885) would be the right way to name the article. You can point out in the lead section what other names the ship may have had. --Brad (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Annnd the spotlight falls on ... USS Massachusetts (BB-59)!

Hi all. An article within the scope of our project, USS Massachusetts (BB-59), has been selected to receive the recently-reactivated Spotlight during the week of 1 August. Any help that could be offered would be greatly appreciated! Some sources availiable for expanding the article can be found here. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A-class review for König class battleship now open

The A-Class review for König class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Endeavour now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Endeavour is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge of sailboat and sailing ship

I propose a merge of sailing ship and sailboat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.49.3 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Prins Willem (1649) and Prins Willem (replica)

The Prins Willem article (should be a disambig page) is trying to cover two ships at once. The original Prins Willem and the replica, which was severely damaged by fire yesterday. Anyone interested in taking this on and converting it into two articles? Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, USS Massachusetts (BB-59), is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

We will be working to improve this article for about a week, so please do come and help. You can get instant access to the channel with this. Cheers, Chzz ► 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS König now open

The A-Class review for SMS König is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy Medical Branch

I have made a provisional article here. I'm not sure about it; please can someone have a look at it and tell me if I'm going in the right direction, or even if it's necessary. If it is made into an article, it would, of course, need certain changes: I haven't put in all of the references I used yet for example.Jhbuk (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hospital ship section mergers

User:Esemono has recently created two new articles on hospital ships, HMHS Rewa and HMHS Glenart Castle and added to another, SS Rohilla. Part of it is a copy and pasted section on what a hospital ship in general is. I've suggested that this be merged to the hospital ship article. A centralised point of discussion is at Talk:HMHS Glenart Castle. Benea (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

pics for Congress

I'm working on USS Congress (1799) and to my knowledge there are no pics to be found of this ship; not even in the PD books I've found so far. Since Congress was basically a carbon copy of USS Constellation (1797) I'm wondering if it would be ok to place a pic of Constellation in the Congress article? Of course the caption could explain what the intention is. With that in mind, would doing this effect any GA or higher review? Also, maybe someone can suggest some generic navy pics of the era to include in the article? --Brad (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

~~How's this? They should all be PD and fine to upload to Commons.~~ Nevermind, just realized this was the second ship to bear the name. DANFS doesn't have any on the first ship. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I ran across those too and then realized they belonged to that piece of crap in Baltimore ;) What do you think about using a substitute pic? --Brad (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks when you get your hopes up, and then realize you were wrong :) I think it's alright to use an illustration of Constellation, since they were more or less sister-ships. You could also use more general naval combat images for the sections of the article about the Barbary war, XYZ, etc. I've done both of those in articles I've written (including some FAs). By the way, are you working on a featured topic on the six original frigates? Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate goal will be FT for the six frigates, yes. No completion date in mind but it would be nice to have a FT on those by 18 June 2012, 200th anniversary of War of 1812. So, 7 articles total, six ships plus the main article. --Brad (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images for sunken ships?

I strenuously avoid using fair-use images for ship articles, but I found myself wondering about using one for the ferry MV Princess Ashika that sunk a few days ago. I'm fairly confident there's no free-use image (having checked ship sites, flickr, google, commons, etc...) currently on the 'net. There seems to me a parallel between the "dead celebrity" argument and one for sunken ships. Has anyone traveled down this road before? Thanks. Haus^Talk 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While free-use images are preferable to fair-use images, the rules do allow the use of fair-use image if justifiable. I have used a few fair-use images myself, but nowhere near the amount I could have used. Does the article really need an image? If so, use one. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) now open

The A-Class review for USS Massachusetts (BB-59) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC review for König class battleship now open

The FA review for König class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II.

I'm trying to create this article. How can I change the title? I have a full stop at the end, which, I gather, is incorrect. I'm not sure that I like the title - it's a bit long. I was going to say The Long Watch - but that is a novel. I'm not keen on the infobox either, but User_talk:Ww2censor#Irish_Mercantile_Marine_during_World_War_II. reckons that it needs one. Another question: should ship names be red-linked? - thanks - ClemMcGann (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Haus - thanks - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clem. I removed the full stop for you using "Move page", which leaves a redirect from the old title. Regarding the title, I noticed there is no Irish Mercantile Marine page. The articles Canadian Merchant Navy and United States Merchant Marine, for example, both have sections on WWII, so that's one approach you could use. I think the general test for red-links is to ask the question "Is the ship notable enough that it may someday have an article?" If so, then putting the link in is probably a good idea. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - then I might have lots of red links - ClemMcGann (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Hindenburg now open

The A-Class review for SMS Hindenburg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 11:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

talkheader installed

I'm not sure if all would agree but I've installed a talkheader at the top of this page. The template allows consolidation of several other templates and also adds a search feature for the archives. Of course this can be reversed if there are strong objections. --Brad (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battleship now open

The peer review for Battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish cruiser Baleares

Someone has recently submitted this to DYK, most of the info seems to come from a couple of personal websites. Could I get an opinion on whether these sites should be considered reliable? Or a better solution perhaps, could someone take the time to add a few cites from reputable publications? I would think someone at wikiships would probably have a good source with info about a capital ship like this. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The information is translated from Spanish Wikipedia, but, because of the nationality and time period of the ship, there's almost no information available in English-language sources. There seems to be a lot of information in Spanish, though, even a [www.crucerobaleares.es whole book] written about it. The book seems to be available online. I could probably translate and source from the book, but I'm not a native Spanish speaker, and it would be inconvenient. Might there be anyone on this Wikiproject who could source the article from that book? Bart133 ^{t c @} 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"bp feet"

Anyone know what "bp" would refer to in relation to length of a ship measured in feet? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could it be length between perpendiculars? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's probably it. I should have guessed as I wrote an article which had a reference to that phrase not long ago.

But now I have found an alternative length, abbreviated as "oa". Know what that one might be? Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It might just be "overall" I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

yep. Benea (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you've saved me a headache :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good list here: Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics. Kablammo (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I've never got around to reading that article before. It turns out to be quite useful, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bayern class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Bayern class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Displacement figures for US warships

The USS Massachusetts A-Class review noted two sections above has brought to light a series of edits based on the mistaken belief that displacement figures for historic vessels are given in short tons rather than long tons. Those edits converted those figures to metric tonnes based on that misimpression, and as a result may infoboxes now contain incorrect listings of metric displacement. The edits appear to have taken place in July. Editors of articles on US warships should look at the infobox figures; if a metric conversion shows a lower figure for metric tonnes than that given for standard displacement, an improper conversion was used. Kablammo (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (This does not apply to current vessels for which the USN lists displacement in both short and metric tons in some cases, e.g., [3]); there are other cases where long and metric tons are used. See pages linked from this search.) Kablammo (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there are many edits, perhaps several hundred, which are suspect. Kablammo (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Displacement has been a mess -one way or another- ever since the Washington Naval Treaty's creation of the "standard displacement" term. Unfortunately the only way to know for sure on one of our articles is to verify the number listed in the wiki article vs. a reliable source, then make sure that our article explicitly lists which "kind" of displacement is being measured (sort of like how Truxtun class cruiser links the displacement directly to the short ton article). — Kralizec! (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Under the treaty ship displacement is measured by long tons.[4]. Now there are some classes whose official displacement figures are given in metric tons:[5][6]:

. . . Displacement is measured in LONG TONS (2240 lbs.) except for the LPD-17 Class, MHC-51 Class, DDX Class and LCS Class which are measured in METRIC TONS (2204.9 lbs.).

(Naval Vessel Register definitions.) It is safe to make assumptions about treaty vessels, and more modern vessels can be determined from official figures and the conversions used by the USN. Kablammo (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Would a template like these which links to the unit (and optionally the definition(s) of displacement) be useful? I could whip one up pretty quickly. Haus^Talk 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Displacement will be either long tons or metric tons. Templates linking to those (and also to the type of displacement being measured) would be helpful. I'm not sure long tons need to be converted to metric tons-- the minor difference between them is less than many ships can consume in a day. There is some feeling that conversions to short tons are appropriate.[7] Kablammo (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a first pass at the template. I'm not sure a conversion from long tons to short tons is worth the textual spam. Let me know if you want any other bells and whistles. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Input	Displays as
{{Displacement\|36,000\|metric\|first=yes}}	36,000 metric tons of displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|long\|first=yes}}	36,000 long tons of displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|short\|first=yes}}	36,000 of displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|tonne\|first=yes}}	36,000 tonnes of displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|unknown\|first=yes}}	36,000 tons of displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|metric}}	36,000 metric tons
{{Displacement\|36,000\|long}}	36,000 long tons
{{Displacement\|36,000\|short}}	36,000
{{Displacement\|36,000\|tonne}}	36,000 tonnes
{{Displacement\|36,000\|unknown}}	36,000 tons
{{Displacement\|36,000\|metric\|first=loaded}}	36,000 metric tons of loaded displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|long\|first=standard}}	36,000 long tons of standard displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|short\|first=light}}	36,000 of light displacement
{{Displacement\|36,000\|tonne\|first=normal}}	36,000 tonnes of normal displacement

I modified the template to be able to represent loaded, standard, light, and normal displacement, as these flavors are also potential fountains of confusion. Two of these, however, redirect to questionable locations. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that only long or metric tons be used as first figure, and that short tons, if thought appropriate, be included only as a conversion. Kablammo (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

After digging through the diffs, I see that this batch of edits happened after several warnings and the possibility of a topic ban came up. It may be best to approach this using an administrative approach? Haus^Talk 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't normally have issues like this come up with editors who continue this path of behavior, the last was Middim13 for those who remember (he is still socking by the way). I've tried and failed to get Magus732 (talk · contribs) to listen and edit productively, and would support any topic ban, but we should go to ANI or AN for a wider view from the entire community. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the user cleans up the incorrect edits by removing the incorrect conversions. Kablammo (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the errors has corrected very few; it may fall upon others to remove the incorrect figures. I have done some (the US fast battleships) but there are many more to clean up. Kablammo (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kablammo. MBK, with your ~~bouts of insanity~~ gnome-like ways, would you be able to get the remainder? I may be able to tomorrow or the next day, but I'm not sure. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to use Haus' new template (especially one of those for long tons), but I've not gotten that far yet. Kablammo (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I'll add it to my to-do list, I'm currently going through all of the destroyers of the US Navy for proper maintenance tagging, filling-in infobox fields, and adding sources if possible, plus reassessment. I haven't even gotten to the huge classes yet, so it will probably be a week since I don't like to stop mid-way through a major project. That being said, if anyone would like to jump in and handle this displacement thing, please do. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good-Topic review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The Good-Topic review for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Make MOS:SHIP a formal MOS guideline?

While making some tweaks over the past couple of days, it slowly dawned on me that MOS:SHIP isn't formally a guideline of the Manual of Style. I think that, down the road, it would serve the project well for it to have that status. Being able to point to broad community consensus on issues like article naming, the "Sink the Titanic/The Jenny" debate, the "she/her/it" debate, and so forth would be handy.

That said, I envision the proposal process as, erm, potentially unpleasant. From what I can tell, the process would involve making a RFC, perhaps a centralized discussion, and an entry at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The downside, of course, is that we could walk away from the process with a mandate, for example, to remove all instances where a ship is referred to as "she".

So, I'm curious what you think on a couple of fronts. First: "good idea/bad idea/not yet". Second, is there enough interest here at the project to represent our consensus in what might become a pretty lively set of debates? Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: No stomach for a "lively set of debates" over these. Quietly leave them here to avoid dilution of sometimes arcane but accurate style guidelines. They are suitable and appropriate as currently placed within project space. Sswonk (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Speaking as an editor who very much believes in the importance of process, I feel that having MOS:SHIP as a formalized guideline could be beneficial. That said, there are a lot of people who are wary of instruction creep (me included), and I suspect we would have an up-hill battle at WP:VPP. The kerfuffle [8] last November over WP:NC-SHIP is a good indicator of just how incendiary discussions on guidelines can get, especially when dogmatic individuals attempt to steamroller consensus in their zeal to apply one-size-fits-all standards. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The aforementioned kerfluffle was a significant motivation for me start this thread, while simultaneously increasing my nausea at the prospect of doing so. Haus^Talk 17:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the ship pronoun issue is addressed adequately in WP:MILMOS, which, as I understand it, is a formal guideline of the MOS. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaning toward oppose - Having just taken the time to read the discussion linked by Kralizec, I'm inclined to agree with the guy who said use the most common names :) But in relation to this particular proposal, quite honestly I don't see much point in it, I doubt very much it will make the existing guideline any more authoritative and I'd be worried that once it's moved into MOS we will get all kinds of meddlers who know nothing about wikiships who will be trying to "fix" things, meaning more work for everyone here in trying to keep the guideline stable.

Other than that, I personally am quite fond of some of this project's traditions, such as referring to ships as "she" and declining to use the definite article with ship names. Anything that would allow the Wikipedia PC brigade an opportunity to attack such conventions gives me the shivers. So basically I see a lot of potential downside to this proposal and not much up. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913)

Assistance from an RN expert is requested regarding the lead image in this article. For the reasons discussed on the talk page, the image likely is older than indicated, and may be from a different location as well. Kablammo (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend pinging Simon Harley (talk · contribs) for RN stuff. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comments; the issue seems to be resolved. Kablammo (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ransom B. Fuller

There's a photo of steamship Ransom B. Fuller aground in 1912, at this webpage. I wonder if it is the same as the USS Ransom B. Fuller from 1902, which currently shows as a redlink in List_of_United_States_Navy_ships:_Q-R? I am working mainly on an article about the Fiddler's Reach Fog Signal, which was put in place 2 years after the steamship wreck, but would be glad to help a bit if someone wanted to open an article about the Fuller. I am in contact with the manager of the website that has that photo. doncram (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ship incidents

I noticed on my watchlist that MBK004 recently added the article Submarine Incident off Kildin island to our list of DYK articles.

Now, I haven't been able to find anything in the guidelines, but it's my understanding that events merely involving ships do not belong on the project, as for example, naval battles. Is that not the case? Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch!! is this correct?? ClemMcGann (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly precedent: scanning through our FA list, I see Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision and Great Lakes Storm of 1913. Also, paragraph 1 of WP:SHIPS ends "and other ship related topics are welcome." Cheers. Haus^Talk 09:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well why don't we include battles then? Why not include naval commanders? We have to draw the line somewhere. It seems logical to me that incidents should not be included, as like battles they are historical events rather than articles about ships per se. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A collision between two nuclear subs is no small incident, it's interesting enough to be included in the DYK list. Loosmark (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of degrees as to how important a ship is to the topic. Here's one way to think of a distinction: look at the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision—to use one of the other examples listed above—and consider what potential "parent articles" might be. Two obvious parents would be Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville (SSN-772), both of which would be ship articles. (In this case, of course, Ehime Maru is not thought notable apart from this incident so Ehime Maru redirects to the collision article.) If I look at something like the Battle of Midway article, the most obvious parent articles I can think of are Pacific War and World War II, and maybe even History of the United States Navy or History of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Even though ships played a very important role in the battle, none of that article's parents would be considered ship topics. So, to me Battle of Midway should not be a WP:SHIPS article. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"IJN" in title

Can interested editors please weigh in here to discuss the use of "IJN" in an article name? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

U-boat infoboxes

In reviewing my watchlist after a vacation, I noticed that Tim1357 (talk · contribs) has removed {{cleanup-infobox}} from many U-boat articles that have the older, more complicated infoboxes using templates like Template:U-Boat Frame, Template:U-Boat Infobox, Template:U-Boat Patrol, etc. (German submarine U-844 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a typical example.) As I recall, past discussions seemed to favor phasing out of the "U-Boat nnn" templates in favor of the standard ship infobox (Template:Infobox Ship Begin, etc.). Was there any discussion revisiting this consensus in the last few weeks? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No there was not, Tim is a brand-new editor who jumped right in using AWB on our infoboxes, and we've had some cleanup to do. I suggest just reverting the edits in question. He was adopted by Xeno (talk · contribs), and the adoption page where I have left advice is here: User talk:Tim1357/adoption (plus some on his talk page in the history) -MBK₀₀₄ 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be more productive if the {{newinfobox|type=ship}} template was used. It's more specific to what needs to be done. On another note, I noticed that Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion is down to about 250 articles which is excellent considering it was up at 3000 at one time. However, I'm quite sure that there are more articles out there with the old infobox still intact that have not been tagged. For US Navy ships I stopped looking somewhere in the middle of the N's as listed by name. --Brad (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you find a great number of these need rolled back, and they are all in a row, might I suggest using "rollback summary" (importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');) in conjunction with "mass rollback"? I will take a look and if I can identify the edits you are talking about, I will go ahead and do that. –xeno^talk 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a conversation from last year on this subject. There isn't a whole lot of articles using these templates so it wouldn't be too much of an effort just to go around and tag them with {{newinfobox|type=ship}}. If you go to one of the template pages and use "What links here" you can see the articles. I'll see if I can run through these soon. --Brad (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Done --Brad (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've taken the liberty of documenting these templates (for the time being) and creating Category:Deprecated U-boat templates to track them. Should make it a little easier to migrate them, I hope. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles that were using these templates have been converted to the correct infobox. Would an admin from this project please delete them under the housekeeping rule? Glad to see these gone. --Brad (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to get on that right now. No one beat me to it... -MBK₀₀₄ 06:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done -MBK₀₀₄ 06:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cantieri Navale Triestino? :-/ no, I don't think that.

Hi to all; can I mark you my comment in Talk:Cantieri Navale Triestino? Thanks, and good wikiwork.--Threecharlie (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, the name "Cantiere" gets 10 times more hits at Google books. Anyone have an objection to moving the page? Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This would be me; I’ve replied there.Xyl 54 (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Derfflinger class battlecruiser now open

The featured article candidacy for Derfflinger class battlecruiser is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Collins class submarine now open

The peer review for Collins class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

LSM(R) articles

Olwillard (talk · contribs) has been creating articles on various LSM(R) craft from WWII. The trouble I'm seeing here is that each article seems to have been copied from one starting article with only slight changes made for each new one. Additionally, the style and tone of these articles lead me to believe that they might contain directly copied material from the source as they read in the narrative. The sources given in one instance claimed to be from a self-published work. So far I think the articles are: USS LSM(R) 191, USS LSM(R) 193, USS LSM(R)-192, USS LSM(R)-194, USS LSM(R)-196 and possibly others. Some of the initial articles I had tagged accordingly for sources etc; two of them were PROD'ed and some editors have been erasing "copyvio" material out of the articles. Olwillard needs a diplomatic approach on this issue because it appears that he's going to continue making articles. --Brad (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Determine if he is infact copying. If so, they become CSD eligible immediately, if not AFD is where they would need to go as contested PRODs due to the suspected copying. Also, if we ascertain they are copyvios and he continues after warnings, then blocking comes into play. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit like creating multiple articles from one source - you could probably conflate them into a single article. The tone seems rather non-encylopaedic in places, but that can be fixed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ORP Wicher move

Could an admin facilitate the move from ORP Wicher (disambiguation) to ORP Wicher, to cover the two articles we have by ships of that name, ORP Wicher (H73) and ORP Wicher (1958)? A redirect with history currently blocks the move. Benea (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy Medical Branch

I have created an article on the medical branch of the royal navy here: User:Jhbuk/Royal Navy Medical Branch. Please read through it and tell me if you think it should be published/improved. Jhbuk (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

good start - consider adding {{Royal Navy}}.

have you read "The Royal Naval Medical Service" by Jack Coulter? - he covers WWII well

a more recent book "Women in uniform" by Collett Wadge has a chapter on wrens acting as MOs

good luck - publish and build - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat thin on the ground. And according to the Royal Navy's own website, and a host of other sources, the official name is Royal Naval Medical Service. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 01:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I admit there are problems with the article, but I felt it was necessary to provide some info on the medical services in the RN, like there is for the army. With regard to the name, I have seen it referred to as the medical branch in a number of places but I may well be wrong. It is however currently referred to as the medical branch on the official website, aswell as medical services,[(http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/rn-life/medical-branch/ here for instance)] and so I assumed the names were interchangeable.Jhbuk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

A-Class review for SMS Derfflinger now open

The A-Class review for SMS Derfflinger is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

US Flag for infobox

Which is the proper one to be used for the {{Infobox Ship Career}} parameter |Ship flag=

Image:Naval jack of the United States (2002–2019).svg
{{USN flag}} with appropriate year parameter?

I have seen each in use. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how old the ship is. If it's currently commissioned, go with the first jack, Don't Tread on Me. That's supposed to be current from 9/11. Openskye (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'd disagree with that. Unless there is some overwhelming reason to do otherwise, the general policy for consistency's sake is to use the ensign in all cases, rather than the jack. The first image is subject to alteration whenever the US Navy decides to alter it again, as a secondary consideration. Martocticvs (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

that's why the encyclopedia is not read-only. it is correct for the current. if it gets changed again on down the line, then we can change it again here. conversely, not changing it is silly; imagine if we stopped updating the POTUS because, well, it'll change again in 4-8 years. ... aa:talk 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said secondary consideration. Regardless, from our own policy on the matter: 'The ensign is preferred if available.' Martocticvs (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What this highlights is an inconsistency in how current American ships are being flagged in our infoboxes. Our guidelines prefer the use of ensigns on the ships of all navies. Should current US ships be an exception and be flagged with the jack (i.e. the first Jack) instead? And if so, why? Benea (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd lean towards displaying the ensign. Naval flag etiquette is a pretty involved discipline, but in a nutshell, and ignoring special cases:

Ensign and jack are both flown in-port from 8am to sunset
Ensign is flown at sea, jack is not

The skivvy-waver 1&c manual, though a few years dated, defines the purpose of the ensign in the following quote: "A national flag is the flag flown to represent a national government. The ensign is a flag designated by a country to be flown by its men-of-war. In the United States, the designs of the two are identical." No similar definition exists for jacks in Flags, Pennants, and Ceremonies, NTP 13, or rate-training manuals. Haus^Talk 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MS Nordstjernen

I've created a very basic article on the MS Nordstjernen. I think it should have an article like many of the other Hurtigruten ships, and I've made a start which can be built on, but I think it should have a picture of the ship. Jhbuk (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's some images on commons, and articles on no.wiki & de.wiki. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, I found them, but I'm struggling to embed one: File:MS Nordstjernen i Molde havnebasseng.jpg. I can't make it fit into the info box.Jhbuk (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You were missing a template :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Great Ocean Liners" site

Just FYI: "The Great Ocean Liners", formerly of greatoceanliners.net, may be gone, but it is in a remarkably good state of preservation at archive.org. So before removing links to this site, check the archive. This is what I'm using as my starting point: [9] SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Found out, the site's not gone, it moved: http://www.thegreatoceanliners.com/ SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazil's version of DANFS...

...is finally coming online. https://biblioteca.dphdm.mar.mil.br/internet/navios/cons.asp It does not appear to be complete—as of this writing it has only six ships beyond the letter "D"—but a look at it confirms that it will be a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wanted to write on Brazilian ships. Text can be translated with Google Translate, and any photographs found here can be used under a Commons Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for North Carolina class battleship now open

The A-Class review for North Carolina class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

FYI, Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher is under rename consideration, he was a leading light in the development of the battlecruiser. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is here. Haus^Talk 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Category names that don't mean what they seem to mean

This is not an important topic, but if someone has time to waste I would like to get comments on some categories that are related to our subject matter. Although no one pays much attention to category listings, I stumbled across a couple of them that seem to my perhaps naive eyes to include either too much or too little. The one is Category:United States Navy steamships, which seems to be restricted in application to only ships built in the nineteenth century. The other shows the opposite problem, of including everything in sight: Category:American Civil War patrol vessels of the United States, which seems to be indistinguishable from the category of ships of the Union Navy. I mention this here in order to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. Comments either here or on the Talk (make that Discussion) pages of the categories are welcome.

P.S. Why can't I link directly to the category page, to save others some unnecessary labor? If I provide a link, as [[Category:American Civil War patrol vessels of the United States]], or [[Category:United States Navy steamers]], the saved text doesn't show anything. (Readers will have to edit this text to see what I have written.) PKKloeppel (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to put a ":" in the front of the link like this: [[:Category:United States Navy steamships]], which produces this: Category:United States Navy steamships. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Brazilian cruiser Bahia now open

The A-Class review for Brazilian cruiser Bahia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article merge?

I was working on this article Type C4 class ship which lead me to General G. O. Squier class transport ship and Haven class hospital ship. I was wondering if the seperate class articles were fine or would a possible merge of some or all of the articles be needed? Shinerunner (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are okay as standalone articles. If we start merging all the ship class articles that used the same design we would end up with a mess. I think these existing articles probably have plenty of room for eventual expansion, but even if they are not expanded they are not doing any harm as standalones and those who want to know more about the ship type can always click on the link. Gatoclass (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)