Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

Photos from RMG

What is the position with using photos held at the National Maritime Museum/Royal Museums Greenwich. Do you have to wait until something is strictly out of copyright, or do they have a more helpful attitude?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - are you aware of an example of the RMG commons licence appearing in Wikimedia commons? The only examples of RMG images I can find there (and I have looked at a very large number of images) are ones which qualify by virtue of the date of creation and the date of the creator's death.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help further. The situation may be a little complex – some images are Crown copyright, but it is possible that some have been licensed to the NMM with the copyright reserved. I suspect that you'll need to check each one separately, but they are in the business of knowledge dissemination sho should help. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep looking, but it seems the 2 series of photos I am most interesting are still in copyright (by some years) and were donated to the museum with the copyright being retained.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: The RMG commons license specifies non-commercial use only, which makes it incompatible with Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Per https://www.rmg.co.uk/terms-conditions, their collection is mostly available under a CC BY-NC-ND license. Since both the NC (non-commercial use only) and ND (no derivatives allowed) clauses are incompatible with Wikipedia, you'd have to wait until it is strictly out of copyright or listed as "no known copyright". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the image your looking at? Broichmore (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo of SMS Mainz sinking

There is a famous photo from the Battle of the Heligoland Bight showing SMS Mainz in flames. One version of it is to be found in Commons and it is the picture in the infobox of the battle. But this is a manipulated one, the whole hull incorrectly overpainted black. A far better version is to be seen here, showing the cruiser in light grey. On another (reversed) version even the stern is to be seen. Which one is the original? Could someone please add the original one to Commons?

(There is at least one other retouched version of this photo in The Daily Mirror from 17. September 1914, where she seems to be broken in two and the stern rages somewhat out from the water.) -Andreas (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to this observer which of the two versions of the photo is the retouched one. It seems quite likely, although I cannot be sure, that the stock images company that provided the photo to the war archive (the photo you say is better of the original two) was pretty heavily retouched before it was added to the stock images company photo bench. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. This is why I said „a far better version”. Which one is the original or whether it is shown here is unknown to me. The „reversed” photo from Spiegel (that’s why it is reversed – hah!) with less smoke seems to have a false shape of the stern. But all of those pictures on which the ship is in her light grey painting would be a better option for this article – if available. -Andreas (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Image fixed. Broichmore (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Broichmore - here also. --Andreas (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cruise ship question

Need some input regarding an article about a cruise ship that is under construction called Carnival Celebration. According to this link, the projected finish date is 2022. I see where the article was a redirect but it keeps being reversed. Any thoughts you'd like to share? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The repurposed redirect (the former target now covered by a hatnote) seems to have been misunderstood early on but has hopefully now settled. Davidships (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested move

Suggest USS Colquitt (AK-174) -> USCGC Kukui (WAK-186). Ship was transferred to USCG two days after Navy commissioning 22 September 1945 and permanently transferred on 11 March 1946. All service history is USCG to 1 March 1972 and then to Philippines. There are two other USCGC ships named Kukui so it would have to be a redirect swap making redirect USCGC Kukui (WAK-186) the main by someone having ability to do that. Palmeira (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. Too many pseudo-Navy vessels.Crook1 (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support, per proposal. [later] Also added a note on the article talk page. Davidships (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Commented there and fully agree on a needed revision. First someone with "Wikipower" to swap an article name with a redirect name needs to do the swap. Apparently that takes "admin" powers. The importance of the ship's work regarding that LORAN system with so many stations on very remote islands is noteworthy. The entire coverage of LORAN here is poor. Worse, as GPS was such a revolution the importance of LORAN-C in more than just ship navigation is being "forgotten" as those of us with direct memory and knowledge die off. Younger folk now do not realize there were whole islands and major reefs out there that were long charted miles from where they actually were. It was interesting to be on the lookout for a big reef on a ship equipped with the best available LORAN-C navigation and see no sign, only to find it miles away — and still be able to locate it in a circle of error because even that precise system of the time had limits. It still got one in sight of a miacharted island or even breakers on a big reef. Then came GPS and I had a pocket receiver and now a phone with circular error of meters while very expensive systems with racks of equipment could only do repeatability in meters — not absolute position. That took a geodetic observation team sitting on a point with either celestial magic or ability to observe Navy Navigation Satellite dopplers for days and crunch the data. Palmeira (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the article, but forgot to give a reason. Didn't need to delete an existing redirect so it could have been moved by any established editor. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I saw a blocking redirect such as I've experienced before to foil a move. Anyway, I hope to find more on the ship. Having set eyes on more than a few of those very tall LORAN-C masts rising from remote islands I was a bit surprised to stumble on the ship's story. I'd just assumed there was a major contract with some big company with the business of erecting thousand foot plus masts that put them up. I remember this mast towering over the flat end of the famous island and some others on even smaller remote specks. The fatal disaster at Io-Jima demonstrates how dangerous that work was. Now I am curious about just what went in to the USCG effort in those jobs. Palmeira (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: May I ask (as an aside) why this ship was not renamed USCGC Kukui (1945) in accordance with the agreed upon titling, endlessly discussed on these pages... -Broichmore (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Sorry to be so late. Missed this entirely. My main objective was to title after major time and accomplishment rather than an absolutely negligible Navy history. I did not really consider going to the year DAB vice designation because the other two USCG vessels are currently going by designation (even if one is a redlink) and I went with consistent within the group over perhaps my overall preference for year. While I do not particularly like all the designations (really almost Navy accounting tags), particularly in titles, I am not "passionate" about ridding all titles of the things. I'd rather do content on obscure but interesting and sometimes important ships. Palmeira (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move: RMS Titanic

Members of this project may wish to join the ongoing discussion at Talk:RMS Titanic#Requested move 5 August 2020. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

They've moved it. Just a thought. Is there a naming convention about ships on wikipedia? And if so can breaking that convention be justified for one article without impacting all the others? G-13114 (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

For your second question; yes. Naming conventions are guidelines, which provide a recommended style to follow. However, all guidelines are subject to local consensus. If a local consensus forms to ignore guidelines then an exception is made, without impacting other articles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Prefixes are not part of the name of a ship. The ship is not so "christened" nor is it registered with a prefix. The prefix would not normally appear in formal documents, customs and immigration and so on. In addition prefixes themselves fall into classes. The familiar SS and MS/MV are somewhat durable and connected to the ship's fundamentals. Even then, particularly during the period after diesel engines proved economical and efficient, many SS Name became MS Name — and yes, in the usages in which prefixes were used the prefix changed. Other prefixes have nothing whatsoever to do with a ship's characteristics but all to do with status. The U.S.N. is very strict about that U.S.S. status prefix, even "removing" it when a ship in undergoing a long term modification or complete overhaul and "out of commission" but even the Navy "recognizes" honorific U.S.S. status in popular and even semi official usage for historic and notable vessels. R.M.S. was quite similar with official use only while the ship was actively holding the Royal Mail license and subsidy. Lose that and the R.M.S. was not authorized at all. One thing here in Wikipedia is a cottage industry in prefixes with additions of prefixes created for niche and often public relations purposes. The industry has sectors a bit creative on some pretty much P.R. driven prefixes with a few going so far as to create a prefix and then add it to the registered name of the vessel. Personally I am in favor of a clamp down on the prefix madness here. I would much rather see another way of distinguishing vessel titles from namesakes; but then there is the Name (ship) debate so for the old standard and basic steam or motor characteristic I have no problem. Palmeira (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The quick answer to your first question is, Yes, in the guidelines form indicated above. You will find the link to it in the infobox on this page. Davidships (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a side effect, we already have User:Lopifalko for example moving multiple ship pages to names only. It only will get worse from here on. Crook1 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Serious question. Why is that "worse"? Why a prefix for a ship when I do not think I have ever seen "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss." or "Ms." in front of most articles about people. Should all those names get those "prefixes"? Even the "Sir" is mainly used in redirects and the honorific generally appears in the first line of the text as in Arthur Conan Doyle and Arthur Eddington. Why just ships? The only practical use of those ship prefixes is to distinguish vessels from the namesake and there are other ways to do that. Palmeira (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, preempting the need for usually-parenthetical disambiguation with natural disambiguation is convenient. That said, sources are king, and sometimes even the natural disambiguation isn't necessary. --Izno (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The Titanic case had some important features that were considered alongside the general questions of (1) Common Name and (2) Reliable Sources. In addition it is (3) the Primary article for "Titanic" (so required no dab); and (4) it used a prefix which is relatively little-known, even in Britain. This combination is certainly not widespread (it could even be unique). Other cases will stand or fall on their merits. Perhaps the prefix optionality in the MOS should be clarified to make it clear that, for merchant ships at least, the option chosen still has to justified by general naming policies, but that that consideration can lead to valid article names with or without a prefix. It should not be an option just at the whim of the article creator or a later editor. Davidships (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've marked "relatively little-known" as dubious. "RMS" is, IME, pretty widely recognised though perhaps not always understood. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In my experience indeed "relatively little known", especially in that large portion of the adult population that has the majority of their years ahead of them (I think a somewhat higher proportion would recognise "SS" and "MV").Davidships (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I fear, actually do because so much interesting history and culture is lost, Davidships is correct and it would be about the same low percentage as those recognizing the rail mail cars on U.S. railroads. I remember going to our small town depot to watch the fast, through express, whip through and the mail car snatch the bag hanging on the special pole. I have family letters sent overseas mentioning "got to close so I have time to make the nine-thirty train to New York to make sailings for (overseas port)". Then my father telling me about rushing to do exactly that, in some cases handing letters off at the last moment in the station. Family here kept up with ship sailings with a published date and time of "last mail for" and train schedules that would connect to those sailings and be closure for sending letters for one or two weeks. Palmeira (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I suspect that "the nine-thirty train to New York" and "even in Britain" indicate two different audiences (unless of course you were referring to the Anglo-Saxon settlement). Following all the shindig and exhibitions of 2012 I think that RMS is probably more widely recognised than, maybe, 20 years ago. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I think the MOS should be clarified. Leaving the widespread misapplication of "USS" alone I strongly support the use of the merchant "prefixes" only where needed to distinguish vessel names from namesakes. For example, I do not think the ship RMS Aquitania requires that as Aquitania (disambiguation) and Google show there is not likely widespread confusion. The other meanings are distinct and self identified as not ships. The non fundamental status honorific R.M.S. should exit titles entirely in favor of a ship unique fundamental such as SS or MS/MV. And there we have another "argument" with a proliferation of secondary prefixes such as TSS. Other than wind there are only a few fundamental ship power sources that are not truly exceptional: steam (SS), motor (MS/MV), some gas turbines (GTS) and nuclear (NS) with the last rare outside military vessels. (There I have an infobox issue as ship's power is quite distinct from propulsion with that power usually driving everything from winches to electrical services with propulsion being just a major draw. Think "reactor" on a nuclear sub.) Those are enough for titles. The subcategories range from somewhat valid to public relations gimmicks to distinguish one line or builder's vessels. Boiler steam, whether coal or oil; old reciprocating or turbine or turbine electric is the basic power source - even when some ships had small auxiliary boilers for some services. The same principle applies with the other power based prefixes. Some unique purpose prefixes are so associated with a ship's design characteristics as to be common use in literature. Cable ships with CS, research vessels with RV, and even fishing vessel with FV are useful as they are based on fundamental design rather than temporary functions or status. The Tr.SMV, TSMV and TSS from Ship prefix? Yep, found somewhere but rare and confusing. How confusing? TSS, there for "Twin-screw steamship," has been used to distinguish steam turbine propulsion in references I have somewhere and here on Wikipedia. MOS for titles should stick to fundamentals of engineering or design SS, MS/MV, CS, RV and so on rather than splinters of subdivision hardly ever found in common use. All the rest should be relegated to text and only there as "a twin screw motor vessel" rather than the confusing TSS. Leave the list as an acronym dictionary, not a source of usable prefixes. Palmeira (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree.Crook1 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. But why as questioned above. What is the reasoning behind ship name prefixes and not people name prefixes? Why should ship name rules here be different than for people? I seriously would like to know the reasoning. Palmeira (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we do have an article about a person that uses a prefix: Mrs Victor Bruce. BilCat (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A rare find! An exception just in the list at Category:British female aviation record holders — and a rarity as seen in another list and another random list of names. Apparently Mrs. Bruce is a true exception! Palmeira (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble onto that article a few days ago when I clicked on a link in another article to check out why "Mrs" was in the name. Odd coincidence! BilCat (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

An interesting exception too as it is almost her primary "racing" name. I wonder if it was that prominent over the others listed in contemporary references by count. Something more on the line of this issue would be vehicles. Take Sport utility vehicle. So, should Ford Bronco be moved to SUV Ford Bronco? Jeep Cherokee (XJ) to SUV Jeep Cherokee (XJ)? The insistence on ship prefixes so closely attached to names is similar to that being applied to all vehicles. And I still do not have an answer to my question that really is to satisfy my curiosity as to why some so tightly hold to the (in my view) weird attachment to ship prefixes. Palmeira (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: The redirect of Titanic already accomplished what you suggested by a move here. The originator of the article obviously debated with themselves how the article should be named. Do you have no respect for them or their efforts? You should know that the readership score for the article has now started again from zero, as a result of this move. Broichmore (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding what this and this show? - no obvious zeroing over the change-date. Also I cannot see that User:Cuchullain made any proposal for a move - he was the non-involved Admin that properly made the move per consensus. As for the article originator(s), we will probably never know who they were, when they started it or whether they discussed the title - but in the earliest available version in October 2001 the title appears to have been "Titanic" (or possibly "SS Titanic") - it was moved to RMS in July 2002, but the Talk page only starts in 2005, so we don't know whether there was a discussion then either. Davidships (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that she sank on her maiden voyage (is that still a acceptable PC term?) she clearly held the "RMS" prefix for her entire working life. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Davidships: Thanks. Here are the RMS Titanic viewing numbers, what this shows is that the readership almost universally look up Titanic. The earlier high numbers I assume were because in 2015 there was no Titanic redirect. I suppose these charts go to prove that mass voting justifies the logical titling of this particular article. It's a matter of debate whether a so called encyclopedia should follow suit, again I'm assuming an authoritative source would carry the official title as opposed to a colloquially known one; I.E. RMS Titanic against plain Titanic. An earlier 2013 discussion Broichmore (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

They are the same pageviews as the first that I linked above. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this page is showing, but I think it is the total number of pageviews 2015-2020 of the article now known as "Titanic", but titled throughout that period as "RMS Titanic" - but says nothing about how readers landed there.

There is nothing intrinsically "colloquial" about "Titanic". It was the official registered name of the ship - that's why it was painted on bow and stern, entered as such in the Liverpool Register book on 25 March 1912 and appears in that form in both Lloyd's Register and the reports of both of the official enquiries - they are about as authoritative as sources come. That's not to say that there is anything improper about RMS Titanic, or SS Titanic for that matter. Davidships (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected my link, thanks... Broichmore (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This thing is getting squished right! @Broichmore: Your assumption is not accurate. To repeat, the "official title" was Titanic. There was no other "name" and you can confirm that in any registry of the time. Let's take the first reference in the article, Titanic Museum Belfast, "Ship name: TITANIC" and you will not find one RMS or even Royal Mail mention for Titanic or Olympic there. Reference #2, Titanic Centenary, not in title, only one use in text. Then a reference on down, Titanic Information Sheet. Note the source that is not particularly known as amateurish about ships and shipping — Lloyd's. Odd, I see "White Star leviathan Titanic" but not one RMS Titanic. In the move discussion @Davidships: noted "interesting that the two formal enquiries in the titles of their reports eschewed RMS - the British used SS and the American Senate just unadorned Titanic." How about outside Wikipedia world. International Marine Engineering was an authoritative professional and industry marine journal contemporary with the ship. So, June 11, 1911. The two White Star giants are discussed at length — yep, before a Royal Mail charter so just the actual names. Still so in professional journal advertising after launch, December 1911 issue. Ok, how about after the Royal Mail seal of approval. Same journal a year later and Foundering of the Titanic starts with "the new White Star steamship Titanic" and nary an RMS. Look at a search of that issue, lots of Titanic and RMS is strangely absent. Nah, that's a clueless "American" professional journal, just does not get the British sensitivity for proper titles! Rubes! So, The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect of London should respect such things. Oops! September 1911 in no less than (my emphasis) Fleets of the Mail Lines with "the White Star steamships Olympic and Titanic" without RMS for any of the mail line ships. And after the disaster, certainly after the mail contract, "the Titanic Enquiry Commission". I searched that entire issue (search in upper right) for "RMS Titanic" — nothing. Those are just two of quite a few such authoritative references I've read with no RMS prefix. Bluntly, the RMS fixation was more the shipping companies' propaganda (Look! We must be safe and good! This ship of ours has a contract and status to carry the Royal Mail!) not unlike a box of candies with "purveyor to the (insert Royal)" and aficionados of things "nautical" perhaps then and certainly now. You might want to expand your study list before stating usage in authoritative sources. Palmeira (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to this, look at the British Newspaper Archive (which I take to be a measure of contemporary ordinary English usage) in the days just before the sinking, particularly after sailing. (So, before the level on interest might be changed by the sinking.) The vastly predominant use is just "Titanic". You will find "Royal Mail Triple-screw Steamers" (Olympic and Titanic) in shipping company adverts. The only example I can find of "R.M.S. Titanic" is an advert for a high class soap[1], which is trading on the fact that it is available for first class passengers on the ship. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in a few of those old journals one finds the articles and notices in the journal that only give the ship names. Then in some of the advertisements one might see the R.M.S. used. I've not checked recently, but my impression is the prefix use drops as the ads are directed to an industry/professional audience. This jogged a memory of early aviation. I think the early U.S. airlines used a U.S. Mail contract in a similar way. Look at the tail in this photo. That may have been a contract requirement (contract number below the U.S. Mail marking?) but I am reasonably sure I've seen magazine ads featuring a line's U.S. Mail carriage. An age of some flying danger new to the public and reassurance "the U.S. Mail is entrusted to us" so we must be safe and timely. Palmeira (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Section break

It does occur to me to ask why we don't move towards a single comprehensive naming scheme for all ships, or at least all modern (say, post-1800?) ships. Something like <ship name> <ship type> <name> and a launch year for disambiguation if needed. (No prefixes or pennant numbers that general readers have never heard of.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes! KISS seems sometimes unobtainable. An analysis of minimum DAB beyond name to distinguish vessels from namesakes and each other can be done and that should drive a decision, but partisans of extraneous items hold tight and circular discussions ensue. I do not understand your <ship name> <ship type> <name> and a launch year, but think <ship name> <ship type> <launch year> would suffice to do both distinguishing jobs of name/namesake and between ships (with rare exceptions). Think there is any chance of consensus making another proposal worth while? [[User: |Palmeira]] (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

But is this not what we do at the moment? What is the effective difference between "Sailing Barge Cambria" (or "SB Cambria") and "Cambria (Sailing Barge)", or for that matter between "Barque Pommern" and "Pommern (Barque)", both of which are obviously better that the present "Pommern (ship)" which is just plain wrong! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "Barque Pommern" and "Pommern (Barque)" is that the encyclopedia user may not know what a "barque" is (especially if they might just work out what "bark" means - with apologies to users of American English) - you need a level of knowledge to understand what a "barque" is - and it is not a commonly understood term outside the subject. "Pommern (sailing vessel)" might work but is somewhat inelegant. So it is not that simple.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

But that is exactly what The ed17 is proposing, just changing the order: "<ship name> <ship type> <name> and a launch year". Oh, and to deal with your specific point, a redirect or disambiguation page for Pommern sorts that out. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The only real use of prefixes in titles is to distinguish a ship from its namesake. Titles are just index tabs and effective redirects and DAB pages do the heavy lifting of other or duplication names. For example, all <nautical prefix> Essex does is distinguish a ship from Essex, the county in England. Go look at Essex (disambiguation), Ships. The first two there fit the proposed exactly. The next two, using RN and USN prefixes have to go to their own DAB pages and there we see the proposed solution again with <name> <year> or in later cases <designation>. Novice users probably find "CV-9" and "LHD-2" pretty meaningless too. Why not just:

• Essex (aircraft carrier 1942)
• Essex (amphibious assault ship 1991)

That, in plain English, separates those ships from all the geographic and other uses and each other. The chance of a naive user typing in "USS Essex (LHD-2)" or "HMS Essex (1901)" for a direct hit without going through a redirect or DAB page is probably very slim. Now go look at Pommern (disambiguation). That naive user does not need to have a clue what barque means in Pommern (Barque). They know it is not a horse, dog, municipality, or Dominion under the Swedish Crown. And neither is it a (Battleship) when "SMS Pommern" goes "Pommern (Battleship)". Palmeira (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We got it, all your arguments can be summarized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A ship has a name and has a designation, it's either SS MV or whatever else it was. What you propose makes no sense, I would argue that prefix should be mandatory because then we have a clear rule instead of all those "I don't feel like using one" we currently have. Please also don't bring silly analogies with people.Crook1 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I get that you really don't like it but do you have good and valid reasons beyond a false assertion about ships having names and designations that must be used in combination for titles and such? Most professional references, registers, even naval reports and books do not make much of those things you mention. We've pretty well proven that with example after example. Palmeira (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Palmeira, your extended discussion of my point is useful. Not every route to an article where the title is unknown is through a disambiguation page. If you type "Pommern" into the search box you get some suggestions come up. As things stand, these are
Pommern, Rhineland-Palatinate
Pommern (horse)
Pommern (ship)
Pommernschaf (which gives a redirect to a breed of sheep)
Pommern (disambiguation)
and a few other items of no relevance to this discussion. Note that there is no "SMS Pommern" - you have to go to the disambiguation page to discover that exists anywhere on Wikipedia. So, suppose that an encyclopedia user is trying to understand a reference to someone "sailing on the Pommern", we have to allow them to identify the warship's presence in Wikipedia; we need to avoid "Pommern (barque)" as that might not be obvious as a type of ship. The intent of editors surely has to be that the suggestions that come up as you type in the search box are of maximum use. That would make the ship-relevant search box offerings appear as:
Pommern (sailing vessel)
Pommern (battleship, 1905)
So the encyclopedia user can see that there are 2 nautical options for them. There is probably something to say about the breed of sheep entry - but that would be off-topic for here.

Relying more on the search box in Wikipedia being functional relies on good article titles. Relying on disambiguation pages relies on (a) the DAB pages being well maintained (and many are not) and (b) the encyclopedia user being aware of how Wikipedia disambiguation pages work - which might be obvious to us lot, but probably not for most people.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Personally I prefer your options above — even if you do say further up that "Pommern (sailing vessel)" "is somewhat inelegant" — as they have plain English utility. If there is more than one Pommern (sailing vessel) then they become Pommern (sailing vessel YYYY). As with all the naval designations the types of sailing vessels is esoteric for the average user (and I'd bet a lot of "ship" people have to look some up). For title utility Name (steamship) or (motorship/motorvessel) or (battleship) or (ironclad) should be quite adequate. Palmeira (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with parentheses. The main thrust behind my thought would be to get rid of acronyms that most people have never heard of and would never search with. We are a general-interest knowledge source, not a specialist/naval one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you are expressing one of the core problems for WP. Do we seek to educate people in the correct/best practice, or are we merely a repository of already well known facts. Consider the mathematical or medical pages; they start with a précis, but rapidly descend into precise "jargon". Redirects are used liberally to capture searches and direct them to the appropriate modern terminology. As an example Emphysema -> COPD, and if you want an example of opaque technical description consider Supraventricular_tachycardia#Diagnosis or have a look at the axioms in Permutation#Definition. It does really make the definition of a barque seem pretty simple! To get back to the example of the Pommern. Is our attitude "yes dear, it's a flappy floaty thing" or do we seek to educate that it is a barque and provide hyperlinks (yes, it is the C21 and most of the time the text is read electronically) to elucidate? Disambiguation pages and redirects show up in the search box as well as article titles. Then there's a fairly major problem with inventing classifications. What would you expect to find if you followed a link to Victory (battleship)? By 1800 "line of battle ship" had changed via "battle ship" to "battleship" and so the preceding would be a perfectly correct, if somewhat misleading, description. In summary: articles need to be precise and not pander to "well, everyone calls it that" sloppiness and be accompanied by liberal use of redirects and disambiguation pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. First, the title is no place for "education" in jargon. User:ThoughtIdRetired pointed out its function in the search box. It functions as a target, an index tab, for redirects and DAB pages. A title is no place to "show off" nautical jargon. Education occurs in the text and even there your points are important to remember. Education does not occur if the "student" becomes baffled by jargon and the teacher/textbook descends into unnecessary complexity. Show off jargon is a plague. Sitting in reach since 1981 is something I too often violate but it did change my writing. Today the hard copy was still at hand within thirty seconds though out of sight for years. Chief of Naval Operations (Op-09BR) tried to stem the plague with Just Plain English. Some of us remember it well and tried to follow. The sections "Specializd Terms" and "Respect plain words" seem to apply.

• "Think of the city fellow in those old western movies who overdressed to impress the folks at the ranch. Overdressed writing fails just as foolishly. Readers may know utilize means use and optimum means best, but why force them to translate?"

Barque for example; define it simply up front and then quit using it in the text. The title is not the place to start that. Palmeira (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

With regard to above discussion, I would like to know why you have swapped year and type in the proposed general disambiguator? When I'm talking about ships in real life, it feels more natural to say for example "With Murtaja, I'm of course referring to the original 1890 icebreaker and not the one built in 1959"; in a way, I'm omitting suffix "-built" or "-launched". Swapping year and type in the disambiguator takes us to the same territory as talking about "Arktika nuclear icebreaker". Also, I hope we can still use "(ship)" as the ultimate generic ship disambiguator; that is, we don't reserve it for full-rigged ships. Tupsumato (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I was inclined to (YYYY TYPE) as well. It didn't stand up. For DAB function the type was general and distinguished a vessel from namesakes or other things. The year was the next level of distinction within "floaty things" when type had more than one case. I agree on use of "ship" and, though I understand the argument, I think my comment just above applies to "full rigged ship" in titles. Palmeira (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify why (YYYY TYPE) did not "stand up"? I can understand that ship type is the primary disambiguator and launch year is secondary, but I don't understand why they should be in order that makes less sense to a casual reader. Tupsumato (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I question the assumption year makes more sense with ships than type of ship to most readers and thus should not be the primary disambiguator. Is the naive user more likely to know the year a ship was launched than what kind? Perhaps some of us ship people think in terms of when ships were launched, but I do not think most people do. They may think of eras, 1930s, and such, but not launch year. So to serve most people with a list from the search box or redirects or DAB pages I am fairly sure TYPE of vessel in plain language will get most readers most directly to what they want. That is why I think the technical nautical terms for rigs or sail plans should not be in titles. Sail plan, not even the most complete with technical and archaic terms, shows why. Bilander? Polacca? No. Let's not do that to readers in titles.

I'll give a personal example — and I know ships fairly well — that involves bunches of passenger ships in the 1920s and 1930s. They changed names frequently and those names were highly recycled among hulls. I cannot keep track of the year launched, though many were launched as a result of WW I construction and in bunches as the U.S tried to compete and modernize. The President liners are an example. That period was a mess of hulls, start up and bankrupt lines and all most will know they were reading about President NAME, an ocean liner, and want to know more. Then they will find there were several launched in several years and have to find which one bore the name during the period they read about. I am curious. Does your mind go to launch date first after a ship's name comes up? Mine goes to "kind" first though period may be close. Name a Delta liner and I think 1950s because family often used them in that period and the names bring special memories, perhaps why I was intent to get to sea. I have to look up their launch dates though. It is the same with the dozen or more ships I spent much of my life in. I know what they were and became and fates (two became reefs, some comfort), but have to look up launch dates. Palmeira (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. If I understood correctly, (TYPE YEAR) is preferred over (YEAR TYPE) because it serves better those who use the search box to look for articles directly. How many users enter the disambiguator in parenthesis when typing the name of the ship in the search box in the first place, for example, "Ilya Muromets (icebreaker)" instead of "Ilya Muromets icebreaker"? How many of them click the drop-down results rather than pressing Enter or clicking "Search"? Are we solving a theoretical problem that does not exist in practice?

Anyway, once the results are shown on the screen, it does not matter if the year comes first, except that (YEAR TYPE) sounds more natural: "2016 icebreaker" is akin to "2016 version" or even "2016 remake", something you could imagine saying out loud when talking about the subject. If(f) we go for (TYPE YEAR), let's at least make it (TYPE, YEAR) so that it appears as if we are disambiguating by comma-separated keywords, the first of which is the ship type.

As for myself, to me launch year is largely useless trivia, the least important of the "big three" (keel laying, launching and delivery). Tupsumato (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not all that enthusiastic about parenthesis for the reason you state. "Ilya Muromets icebreaker" with the italics setting off the name seems fine. I see no real difference from book or even article titles. Titanic is full of such references:

• Lost Voices From the Titanic: The Definitive Oral History
• Titanic: The Ship of Dreams
• Titanic : the real story of the construction of the world's most famous ship

Our titles can follow that practice with the proviso the extended title is formulaic to aid searches. Some good systems analysis here on what a Wikipedia title is, what it does in this system (Could we bring in someone familiar with Wikipedia's search function?) and how best to format it for function would be worth while. Any decent system specification goes through such before coming into effect. So, from below, we might have "Pommern battleship 1905" or "Pommern 1905 battleship" format depending on that look at user behavior and title function. It is even possible the Wikipedia search would present both equally well. Palmeira (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

While I strongly oppose dropping the parentheses from ship article titles and relying only on visual differentiation between the article title and the following space-separated disambiguators, I acknowledge that WP:NCDAB would seem to allow a comma-separated disambiguators without parentheses ("Pommern, battleship, 1905"). However, I'm not voting for that either.

Before we make things so simple we go too far and make them stupid, I really want a definite answer on whether using disambiguator in parentheses as per standard Wikipedia practice makes finding articles using the search function too difficult or not. If I write "ilya muromets icebreaker" to the search box and hit Enter before the drop-down menu has time to materialize, I'll be instantly rewarded with a list of articles where the first one is the disambiguation page for four icebreakers of the same name. Tupsumato (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mulling this over, are we working towards the following? An article has a main title - so that would be HMS Victory (because that is the common name) or Pommern (sailing vessel) (because we want to differentiate from the steam powered warship and "barque" may have no meaning to the searcher) and SMS Pommern (because we can't have varying rules on warship prefixes), but we also have Pommern (barque) (with a redirect to Pommern (sailing vessel) and Pommern (battleship, 1905) with a redirect to SMS Pommern. Victory already exists as an article on its own, with a link to a disambiguation page (so that's OK). I think this equates with the web of redirects mentioned on medical articles (above).

I am not nailing my colours to the mast with these ideas - I am just trying to highlight the problem that one needs to be reasonably proficient to reliably find things that exist in Wikipedia. What is the point of having articles on subjects that are not necessarily easy to find? The education bit (looking at comments above) comes once the user has found the article. If they can't find it, they don't get the education (i.e.: what exactly is a barque?)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear be be proposing renaming virtually every single article on ships. This will create a large workload and will break things like templates, while giving titles that don't clearly indicate what the ship is called, and what is a disambiguation - Cavalier destroyer 1944 does not seem to be a better title than HMS Cavalier (R73) (or even just HMS Cavalier)Nigel Ish (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Ed largely works with sail and ships where titles are different than the run of the mill "USS/HMS" and other prefixes. We do appear to have a major division between that area and the U.S.N./R.N. war ship interest group. I am more interested in late 19th century — post WW II commercial, U.S. Army and Navy auxiliaries through the Cold War with little interest in "bang-bang" ships (though I know them pretty well). Thus I get into some nooks where there is more "rule" variance than just late U.S.N./R.N. As much as I dislike the flagrant misuse of "USS" here I see some utility of keeping the long established and stable "USS" and "HMS" even if for other navy articles we have longer titles such as "French ship Mistral (L9013)". Those are established now for centuries and apply from sail through nuclear. Almost every English speaking user knows enough to see that is a ship and not something else.

The problem appears to be fitting civilian ships — sail through today — with less stable and established appendages to names into a global ship name format applying for centuries in both civilian and military areas. Yes, "SS" and "MS/MV" have been around in English (go elsewhere and those may change) since the last half of the 19th century. If it were just a question of SS, MS/MV and a very few NS this whole thing might not come up. As it is there has been and is a cottage industry in the trade and particularly here on Wikipedia coming up with variants (sometimes just for distinctive advertising) and that is showing up in titles here. There also seems to be a partisan group that ignores example after example that those prefixes are absolutely not an almost required attachment to ship names as some here seem to contend, in actual professional and scholarly works on ships. Some even contend the prefix is an integral part of the name — something no registry, legal entity and professional dealing with ships knows is not the case — I think it is established here too in some guidance.

Then we have sail and lots of technical jargon, absolutely necessary for a real description of such a vessel but obscure and downright confusing to the average user of Wikipedia. Sail is not my main interest, though I love them and to sail, and I have to look up some of those terms. A plain English description in the title and "education" on rig and such in the early text is in my view far better than titles with obscure terms even some of us might puzzle about and have to look up. Palmeira (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Minimalist solution?

The least work to achieve a solution appears to be
(1) retain all the USS/HMS/SS/MV/etc prefixes in article titles that we have at present (because there has presumably been some thought into each one of them)
(2) Go through each one of these "prefixed" titles and see which of them are not easily found in the search box. Examples: enter "Hood" in search box and I think you would find the ship through the disambiguation page (Hood). (Note that (HMS Hood offers List of ships called HMS Hood for other options.) However, enter "Cavalier" in the search box and I don't think you would ever find HMS Cavalier. That would be fixed by, for example, having a redirect article title Cavalier (warship) (or something like that) and also putting HMS Cavalier in Cavalier (disambiguation)
(3) Sailing vessels: use the Pommern (sailing vessel) as a model for either a redirect article or for the main article title. Always ensure that a search will find the vessel without the searcher either knowing or understanding the rig type.
Whether this is accepted depends on:
(a) a consensus on the existence of a problem finding some Wikipedia articles at the moment because the title chosen does not make it easy to find or identify as what you are looking for;
(b) if the model of the redirect article titles and better disambiguation pages in other subject areas on Wikipedia appears to be a useful solution;
(c) if a substantial workload is a barrier to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

Some of this work has already been done. For instance, if you search for Wight Light you get redirected to MV Wight Light (how would you ever find the article otherwise? Without the redirect, "We took the Wight Light across to the island" would never be decoded here.). As a task of maintenance, setting up the redirects and disambiguation page entries is going to be a bit like painting the Forth Bridge - a continuous task.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Combined comment here and "mulling" above. First — exactly:

"What is the point of having articles on subjects that are not necessarily easy to find? The education bit (looking at comments above) comes once the user has found the article. If they can't find it, they don't get the education"

Our titles sometimes contain information we know but I can assure (from experience) very many do not. Stunning, but I've run into younger folk puzzled by "steam ship"! The focus on means of propulsion in prefixes is largely an industry thing and even then often only the advertising part of the industry — as somewhere in here is proven by references. "Passenger ship" or now "cruise ship" with "container ship", "bulk carrier" and such as "liquid natural gas" ships are stretching it for the general population. The old "cargo ship" is relegated even in the industry to a niche trade with the monsters serving more populated and accessable places. (Makes me sad. Seen so many of my old ports deserted except for tourist craft. Not a ship in sight.) Leave the proliferation of specialized and sometimes even corporate or niche industry prefixes to the prefix list and references in text. They do not belong in titles for the naive searcher to wrestle with.

I think we should take a "systems engineering" approach looking for a standard of plain English, direct or minimal steps to hit the education from a state of "Wonder what that ship in the old story was really like?" level knowledge. Rid titles of jargon. Probably keep the military prefixes and maybe the very basic, fairly well known "propulsion" prefixes. Make sure we have clarity any of those prefixes or suffixes are not part of a ship's name (just last week I ran into someone adding prefixs back into an infobox name list asserting they were). Palmeira (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with "because there was presumably been some thought into each one of them" when it comes to civilian vessels: many merchant ship articles were created with a prefix even when there was no need to disambiguate "because they are ships and ships have a prefix". I have also been guilty of this in the past and while I have sometimes corrected my own errors, I have been reluctant to begin e.g. mass moving of cruise ship articles without wider project consensus. As a result, some shipping companies actually have ship articles using any of the allowed disambiguation styles (including my all-time favourite: both prefix and parentheses). Tupsumato (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nojima Maru (1919)

Wiki page suggests, that the Nojima Maru sunk in 1943 in the Bismarc Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nojima_Maru_(1919) However, there is a picture of the bow of the ship in Kiska Island in Alaska, some 7200 km north from assumed sinking position. Kiska Island was manned by the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1942-1943.

https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Kiska+Island/@52.0602077,177.5735601,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipOjC2dUjPd6Vp--7qzN1ucRFKRxraRbVt5QTRrc!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOjC2dUjPd6Vp--7qzN1ucRFKRxraRbVt5QTRrc%3Dw203-h139-k-no!7i1161!8i797!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x5824fd3258dc4505:0xa987c17e0415da46!2sKiska+Island!3b1!8m2!3d52.0602077!4d177.5735601!3m4!1s0x5824fd3258dc4505:0xa987c17e0415da46!8m2!3d52.0602077!4d177.5735601 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacklumChaam (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Two different ships; the one we have an article on was a 345-ft vessel launched in 1919, the one you're talking about was a 449-ft vessel launched in 1935. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

discussion on merging George W. Blunt, No. 11 with USS G. W. Blunt (1861)

The merger is being discussed at Talk:USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861)#Merger_proposal. Please share your input. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Experienced eyes are needed to confirm the pilot boat George W. Blunt is in fact the vessel described in DANFS as:

"G. W. Blunt, formerly Blunt, was a wooden two-masted schooner acquired by the Navy in New York 23 November 1861."

As far as I can tell no cited reference provides a solid identity trace. The name alone is not so unique as to be a certainty that Blunt, G. W. Blunt and George W. Blunt are undoubtedly the same vessel. The "nail" for that link needs to be found if possible. Otherwise I think perhaps a note that the linkage is not solid should be in any merged or remaining single article. Palmeira (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: and Palmeira is the 1861 American Lloyd's Register entry of any use in sorting this one out? Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Not that I see. I looked at every item for a "fingerprint" characteristic in common with the sparse information in DANFS. Not even the name is an exact match. DANFS is vague on the vessel's origin; New York and a date. The only hard data outside Navy events:

• (Sch: t. 121; l. 76'6"; b. 20'6"; dph. 8'9"; s. 10 k.; a. 1 12-pdr., and 1 12-pdr. r.)

• G. W. Blunt, formerly Blunt, was a wooden two-masted schooner acquired by the Navy in New York 23 November 1861.

The only exact common factors between that register and DANFS I see is "Blunt" in the name and "schooner" — then the stretch that the "Geo. W" in the register is the "George William Blunt, born in Newburyport, Mass., 11 March 1802" whose initials were used by the Navy in its naming. DANFS has errors, but I do question whether that vessel with the bare name Blunt Navy acquired was the pilot's George W. Blunt. Navy does tend to shorten names at times to the last name/word, usually only after using the full name once, but here seems a stretch. What I'd look for is some reference in records clearly stating that the pilots' vessel was acquired by Navy and became its G. W. Blunt. Even a not fully definitive one such as "the pilot vessel number eleven was sold to the Navy 23 November 1861" in a newspaper would be a tack if not a nail. So far I am not seeing anything like that. Palmeira (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Another check of the references leads me to conclude they do not support the conclusion the pilot vessel became the Navy vessel. It could be, but references given do not support the conclusions in the text. Palmeira (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: if it's a newspaper source you want, the Library of Congress] covers newspapers from 1822 -1936. Might be something there. Mjroots (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A single hit of an advanced search for 1861—1862 using phrase and words go a new reference that seems to be what is needed. The New York herald. December 02, 1861, Page 8, Image 8. It is about the second pilot boat but has "take the place of a yacht of the same name recently sold to the US government to go to Port Royal as a pilot boat." That is more than a slim thread connecting the vessels. I am adding it as a reference. Palmeira (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the original vessel, George W. Blunt, No. 11, infobox and intro to avoid confusion. On Talk:George W. Blunt, No. 11 I have summarized that and made a proposal USS G. W. Blunt (1861) be merged into the pilot vessel article to maintain chronological integrity that will also help avoid the mass confusion of same/variant names, two pilot boats of the same name and the impossible apple/orange/grapefruit sorting of unspecified dimensions and tonnage from various old sources in attempts to sort vessels of same or almost same characteristics. In any case the title USS G. W. Blunt (1861) is inappropriate. The DAB of date is Navy acquisition year, not launch year, and thus adds to confusion with the second pilot boat launched in 1861. As far as I can tell no other Navy vessel was named G. W. Blunt so no DAB is needed. Palmeira (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: Again may I ask (as an aside) why this ship should not be merged as one article as USS G. W. Blunt (1861) in accordance with the agreed upon titling strategy, endlessly discussed on these pages... Are we just wasting our time commenting here. Hull or pennant numbers are unreliable for names, do nothing for signalling chronology, and will do even less going into the future. The USS G. W. Blunt (1861) article was written in 2007 and is the senior of the other by 12 years. Articles using hull numbers and whatever, it has been agreed are to be avoided, they are wrong. USS G. W. Blunt (1861) is right and correct. Broichmore (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The "confusion" regarding this vessel really needs to stop. Someone else is now bringing up name confusion again. There is no confusion. We have solid references of dates, names and events. Both titles contain extraneous or erroneous information. Reasons for merging into George W. Blunt follow with title issues secondary:

• The "senior" name for the vessel built in 1856 by Daniel Westervelt of New York with an 1856—1861 "career" is as the pilot boat George W. Blunt.

• The title of that page is a blunder with an appended number pilot boats took, often painted on their sails, and was used to call an individual pilot with signals in the days there was intense competition for business. They put the signal number on their cards and someone tacked that "call sign" onto the name, probably because it was on a business card. From my "Enjoyment" on the pilot boat talk page: Mary Taylor displays "17" and Moses H. Grinnell, owned by George W. Blunt by the way, displays "5".

• The junior name of the same vessel, given after purchase by the government and commissioning in 1861, is G. W. Blunt with a fairly decent career 1861 — 1865 until sold at Port Royal 20 October 1865.

• G. W. Blunt (1861) for this schooner is a blunder, wrong, the date of acquisition, completely out of line with any basis for such a date whether one questions launch/completion as the basis. That wretched date has also caused hull confusion with the second schooner built to replace the first when the Navy got it.

• The final article's text will be chronological in names and service. Name seniority generally has precedence unless the career under a later name overshadows it in the literature and culture to the point a case is made to go with fame. Neither of the careers are so overpowering that I see that kicking in for the final title. Further, in the unplanned digging into this thing I found quite a bit of New York area pilot information, the competetion, the naming of the boats after prominent New Yorkers, incidents, worthy of fleshing out the pilot boat career text.

My proposal: Merge the text into chronological order making crystal clear the date/name sequences and that a confusing second pilot schooner, George W. Blunt built by Brown & Lovell in East Boston, is George W. Blunt (1861). It replaced the original schooner by then in Navy service. Whether the final title follows the seniority or fame precedence it is George W. Blunt (1856) or USS G. W. Blunt (1856) unless we want to add (subject of another discussion) the type: schooner with date fore or aft depending on any consensus there.Palmeira (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The boats may have been confusing, but why are there similar discussions on this proposed merger going on here and on each of the article talk pages. At the stage we are at isn't the right place Talk:George W. Blunt (1856)? Davidships (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Section break

(Duplicated in both article Talk pages) No matter whether merge is George W. Blunt built 1856 <-> USS G. W. Blunt built 1856 and acquired by Navy in 1861 the names required correction. That may cut down on confusion as well. The whole USS G. W. Blunt (1861) was a blunder using acquisition year instead of built year encouraging conflation with the second pilot schooner, built as a replacement for the first, in 1861. Clean up at linking pages after move with direct links except on various user and talk pages. Palmeira (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that the best thing is to name them George W. Blunt (pilot boat 1856) with a redirect from USS G. W. Blunt (1861), and George W. Blunt (pilot boat 1861). However since it's so confusing perhaps it's better to combine them into one article entitled something like George W. Blunt (pilot boats). Apologies if I got dates confused earlier. Broichmore (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with that plural boats. When I was checking what links after the moves I hit two fairly extensive pages in the form of expanded lists for pilot boats: Pilot boat and List of Northeastern U. S. Pilot Boats. As I suspected, pilot boats in different "stations" could have the same number as a boat at another station so the number appears to be association/station specific and not something for titles. Some of that probably should be integrated into whatever results from the merger. The fact the namesake also had a prominent role in the pilots as well as owning one of the boats needs to be in there too. We do have to consider the person, George W. Blunt occupies that title. I'd suggest a DAB page for the bare name with the person and the separate boat names, but that is complicated by the person occupying the bare term. We would then have to distinguish that title from the schooners. Palmeira (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If the article is about two ships of the same name and purpose, why not use just "George W. Blunt (pilot boat)" with redirect from "George W. Blunt (1856 pilot boat)", "George W. Blunt (1861 pilot boat)" and "USS G. W. Blunt"? Or was there a reason why we need to include the launch year that I have missed? Also, I strongly oppose starting using (TYPE YEAR) instead of (YEAR TYPE) as a disambiguator without wider discussion and consensus within WP:SHIPS. Tupsumato (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tupsumato: I agree with you that's why I suggested after reflection George W. Blunt (pilot boats). The two schooners dates are so confusing that I think it best, it be one article for both. (YEAR TYPE) seems to be the practise certainly when it came to Prince of Wales (EIC ship), if that's not written into a procedure already it certainly should be. Broichmore (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

New convenience wrapper template Template:Ship name format

There are a few times outside of ship-related infoboxes that we need to properly italicize a ship's name. We already have a module to do this, {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name=}}. Editors will probably find it more convenient to call a template, so I created a wrapper template. I updated the documentation for the module accordingly. Important if you are editing a module or template or if you are editing a page with a lot of ship names in it, it's better to invoke the module directly rather than calling the template. If you use the template, it's more likely that articles will exceed Wikipedia's template limits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it's good to see that the module is used for purposes that weren't considered when it was created. But, to exceed the WP:TLIMIT will take a lot of a lot of {{ship name format}} templates. There are a millions of articles out there that use the cs1|2 tempates ({{cite book}} and similar). There are a lot of those articles that have hundreds of cs1|2 templates. As I write this, COVID-19 pandemic has 863 cs1|2 templates. Here is a very simple {{cite book}}:

{{cite book |title=Title}} → Title.

When that template is processed by Module:Citation/CS1 it produces this:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000006-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Ships%2FArchive+63" class="Z3988"></span>

c.f. {{Ship name format}}:

{{Ship name format|name=USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659)}} → USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659)

When that template is processed by Module:WPSHIPS utilities it produces this:

USS ''Will Rogers'' (SSBN-659)

So, use the template; use it as much as you want, and don't worry about WP:TLIMIT.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about "lists of" pages with hundreds or thousands of ships. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

davidwr - such as the various lists of shipwrecks? Take any WWII list - e.g. List of shipwrecks in May 1945- we already have {{ship}} and its various sub-templates to use. I can't see that the new template does anything different to the existing ones, except requires more typing to achieve the same result. BTW, what is the template limit? It is rare to exceed it, but I have done so, which is why the shipwreck lists from the 1820s-1860s have been split by month instead of year. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Ah, yes, that would accomplish the same thing. I was unfamiliar with that template. I created this template to solve the specific problem of making redirects italicize properly using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} based only on the page-name, then realized there were other possible uses. It's still better for italicizing the page-name of redirects since it can take {{BASEPAGENAME}} as a parameter, which means it still works after a page move. But for use in articles about ships, {{ship}} or one of the other templates is better. I will update the documentation. Wikipedia's template limits are discussed at WP:Template limits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes that I think should be made to this template are:

• shorter name (a redirect); I was thinking of {{snf}} but that is already a redirect to {{sfn}} which I suspect has a larger population of users than would this template. So, perhaps {{sn fmt}} or {{snfmt}}
• having to type |name=<ship name> has tripped me up a couple of times; as with the {{USS}}, {{HMS}}, ..., {{ship}}, {{sclass-}}, etc templates, at least |name= (probably the others, too) should have a positional alias {{{1}}} so, internally:

  {{#invoke:WPSHIPS_utilities|ship_name_format|name={{{name|{{{1|}}}}}}|...}}
  

• |showerrs= (misspelled in the template) should probably go away; it was handy when I wrote the module but I suspect that it has outlived its usefulness

Another, as far as I know not-yet-described use would be in the ledes of ship articles where ship name (as article title) is bolded. I have sometimes seen peculiar markup used to accomplish that. Something like:

'''{{ship name format|name=HMS Slough of Despond}}''' → HMS Slough of Despond

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of aliasing |name= with |1=, but we should wait a few days for objections first. I've advertised this discussion on Template talk:Ship name format. Feel free to update the template in a few days if there are no objections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The agreed upon titling strategy, endlessly discussed on these pages is to avoid using hull or pennant numbers as opposed to dates. So why are we (here) promoting their use in templates? Are we going to follow the agreed upon rules here or not? Broichmore (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: - I think WP:MILHIST will have something to say about that. Hull/pennant numbers are generally a perfectly acceptable method of disambiguation. They are almost never re-used. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hull numbers, yes, but pennant #s are very unstable and shouldn't be used as a disambiguator, IMO. Some ships had 3 or 4 different ones during WWI. Plus you can't tell if X (F34) is a WWII destroyer or a Cold-war-era ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots:@Sturmvogel 66: Hull numbers do change. Read the American section here at Hull number. Not only can pennant numbers change but they can be out of sequence too, Example: HMAS Torrens D67 in 1916 and DE53 in 1971. Broichmore (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Yes, vessels changed pennant numbers. But it is almost unheard of for two separate vessels to be allocated the same pennant number (RFA Sir Galahad (L3005) being the notable exception), so the problem doesn't really arise. As for telling if it is a WWII or Cold War ship from the pennant number, that don't matter either. Clicking on the link will give the answer. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

True enough, but I'd much rather have a disambiguator that's both stable and unique, rather than one that's just unique. The issue with not knowing what era the ship is from is only really relevant when I'm searching for ships of that name, not when clicking on a link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: We're not talking about links, we are talking about the naming of articles. Broichmore (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The date of launch is the only disambiguator that is stable, unique and instantly indicates the period of the vessel. Using the date is what has already been agreed here, many times before now. Broichmore (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: replying to your message of 17:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC), I've made a sandbox and test cases for Template:Ship_name_format that implements your change (diff). If there are no objections in the next few days, I invite anyone to import it. Please credit Trappist the Monk in the edit summary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed |showerrs= and edited the testcases page. Both of the sandbox and the live templates have a newline between the {{#invoke:WPSHIPS utilities|...}} and the <noinclude>{{doc}}</noinclude> tag. Is that newline there for a purpose?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I removed both. Thanks for catching that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Don't shoot the Messenger, Monk, but what are you doing. It's been agreed by the community at length to use launch date as the disambiguator in a ship's articles name. Therefore the template should show that and not a hull number. The template suggesting a hull number is sending out an inconsistent message. Before you ask, I had and never have had a say in that agreement. Regards Broichmore (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Having just read WP:NCS an apology might be in order. Inexplicably the policy suggests that hull numbers can be used, despite all the debates to the contrary on this page. The policy is written in such a way to even give it precedence. However it does say, use a hull number if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known. This seems nonsensical. There are few if any ships known, (generally or specifically) by their hull number; and its not a given that it is unique. I'm grinding on this because my prime interest on the wiki, after being run off by trolls bitching about article titles etc etc., is in categorising images on Wikimedia, and disambiguation dates are a big help in that endeavour. I keep on saying it, but as the years roll by and the USN keep on launching new ships this can only get worse. Hull numbers just don't cut it when it comes quickly assignin a period to a ship. Broichmore (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about {{ship name format}} so is not the place to discuss ship disambiguators. Start a new discussion or contribute to a more appropriate discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by what [am I] doing? It seems that you think that something about {{ship name format}} is somehow newly imposing hull numbers as disambiguators. Where did you got that idea? Why do you think that I have some agenda to impose pennant / hull numbers as dabs?

The ship_name_format() function in Module:WPSHIPS utilities underlies {{ship name format}}. The function was written in September 2015. Soon after, ship_name_format() became part of {{infobox ship begin}} where it handles formatting of the infobox caption and the article title. The function does not care whether a disambiguator is a year, a hull number, or some arbitrary text. The template is not suggesting a hull number; it renders the dab it was given so it cannot be sending out an inconsistent message.

I know that you said not to ask, but what agreement are you talking about?

Just for information, there are a lot of naval ship-articles that use non-launch-year dabs:

USS ... (dab): ~6900

HMS ... (dab): ~1700

The above are, no doubt, imperfect search criteria ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed USS Pueblo (AGER-2) move to an article focused on the incident

Others might wish to comment on a proposal made to move USS Pueblo (AGER-2) to a pure "Pueblo incident" article. See Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2). The ship article is incident heavy. A move seems ill advised and not normal practice to "solve" the problem. Palmeira (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What links? Technical question.

The "What links here" is very useful for connections and clean up. It becomes useless with the templates in the bars on so many ship pages that link every ship in a class, list and sometimes only vaguely associated grouping. Filtering out actual article linkages from all these rote linkages is often not worth the effort. I've tried playing with "namespace" but those things are in the "Article" namespace. This is a clear case of a "benefit" canceling another, perhaps even more useful beneficial tool. I've just run into one, "Surviving ocean going ships," that links ships with on other connection and no mutual mention in most articles that is making in article links more work than worth while. Other than survival from a certain period there is no reason those ships should have linkages. Any work around? Palmeira (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira are you talking about {{Surviving ocean going ships}}? Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes — as a particularly horrible example of interference when trying to find in-article text links for making sure of specific links and associations. An example is what I'm working on at present, USS Allegheny (ATA-179) with far more interesting associations than in the DANFS copy that existed. Ok, what does link to that particular ship elsewhere? Oh oh. Every ship in that massive list — pages for 1919 to 1970 — is shown (naturally) as a link but only one or two links may actually be specific associations with Allegheny. The only way I see at the moment is perhaps to delete those templates long enough to clean up actual textual links. It may be nice to have those associations, but for editors trying to correlate articles they make the tool useless. Good programming could probably fix that so that those mass and often tenuous associations are not shown in ordinary "What links here" lists — but then that is probably a long process. I was hoping someone knew another work around. Those things are a good example of something good for one purpose poisoning another. Palmeira (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course that does not work as all those other pages containing the template still link. As far as I am concerned the things introduce a real bug into the editing system. Palmeira (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It does occur to me that {{Surviving ocean going ships}} ought to be a list rather than a navbox. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Or even a category. Neither would destroy the functionality of "What links here" as does the present situation. Clean up links after a move? Not with those things out there! Someone thought of a "nice feature" without doing the analysis of what impacts it would have on a basic system function — identifying textual page links for maintenance. It is not too bad for a ship class, there usually are not hundreds. When I went to show 500 survivors I got two pages, and the second was not a short page! So, we have upwards of 1,000 ships cross linking with nothing in common or cross references other than they survive and are located in that function. Bad idea. Palmeira (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

TFDed. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This "issue" is one that has been there a while. I vaguely recall the most recent VPT discussion saw someone make a script for it but can't find it on mobile right now. Meanwhile, if you are looking for links to an actual article, you can use Special:Search if you learn the basics of regular expressions. For example, here is a search for a basic link to World of Warcraft. I understand the issue is a bit harder with the variety of ship templates there are, and can probably scrape up a regex (or maybe Ttm can help with that workaround if necessary, since he haunts these waters). --Izno (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It has irritated me a couple of times but I suppose I haven't hit anything on this scale (see above) before. I will give your suggestion a try. I am familiar with the function. I'd guess several variants of the name may be needed to find all instances. Palmeira (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue is more of a technical one in nature. When clicking on "what links here", it would be useful the have links identified as being from articles, templates, talk pages, archives. It might also be a good idea to be able to have the displayed in a specific order (would suggest articles first, the rest can be thrashed out later). This might be something better raised at WP:VPT or another suitable venue. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The first thing I tried was the upper right box labeled "Namespace" with an "Article" and a "Template" selection. "Article" does not filter out this sort of template because they are in the article space. Selection of "Template" works probably as intended. It liste the two templates that cause the problem. Wherever it needs to be raised, I'm not familiar with that sort of thing here, it seems to be somthing that completely nullifies the "What links here" utility that is so helpful in maintaining links. Palmeira (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, did my homework. phab:T14396 is the ticket of interest if you wish to watch it for some indeterminate future. It has multiple workarounds. The first is the one I provided above. The second is User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js, which is a script version (one-click kind of thing) with a similar methodology to the first but a bit more wide-searching I think from a brief review. Third is the Template:Source links, which is essentially a template version of the first. --Izno (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Larger problem: Since bringing this up I've begun noticing how the use of these things nullifies the utility of "What links here" for editing in many more cases and how so many are collections of pages with no direct relationship to the subject. For example I've run into several where one gets many "links" only because the ship is found in a list of shipwrecks by year or being built in a year or place masking any pages where there is an actual textual linkage. It is pretty much as if a needle catalog calls in fields of haystacks. In my view this nullification of a very useful edit/maintenance tool by another requires high level programming and policy review. As noted above, selecting "Template" in the upper right of "What links" does separately identify all templates that link. Therefore templates can be isolated. They may be subject to isolation from returning links in a regular "What links" result. How is such a functionality issue raised to a level so that it is addressed as a general Wikipedia functionality problem? Can someone with more knowledge and interest (I have little beyond content) in the workings here do that? Palmeira (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where another particularly egregious example is given. SONAR calls in the template "Leonardo da Vinci" that includes — on the third page of 500 links — Lady with an Ermine. Talk about unrelated! Palmeira (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is unlikely to change without someone to work the already provided software ticket. And knowing the already-discussed issues with implementation in that ticket, it might not ever be able to be done. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is as I expected and feared. Our ships problem is dwarfed by the Leonardo da Vinci/SONAR/Lady with an Ermine/WHO knows what else problem! I know that I won't even attempt to maintain links or update after a move if those apples/oranges/orangutans/all living things/universe "links" show up. Palmeira (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible work-around - comment out the template(s), preview, click on "what links here". Does that reduce the links to those actually in the article? Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that does not do it. The known effective workarounds have been provided. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 29 gains traction. The "Leonardo da Vinci" one certainly fails

1 All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

3 The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

I expect many coming out of what appears to be a Navbox template factory fail as well. Palmeira (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect ship name blunder deletion: USS Audacious (1913)

There was no such ship and the name is a complete blunder, probably another "had a connection with a military op, i.e. must be USS" (A bit of discussion on the actual ship's talk page. Speedy deletion was declined. It is a dead page, had no real incoming links and likely there because of another blunder in a DAB page (That should also probably go). I looked over the deletion process. Bluntly I'm almost exclusively interested in content, not Wikipedia processes, and will just leave it as a memorial to poor research rather than divert time. Someone here already knowing the deletion process may like to teke that on. Palmeira (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted it under WP:G6. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a decline for speedy citing some other criterion. Actual ship sort of interesting from a city of fond memories. Hope to find a bit more about the ship. Palmeira (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: - I fixed the ref errors, added a cat and navbox. Was she a cargo ship or passenger ship? Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Both. Original construction was passenger/cargo but apparently primarily immigrant passengers. I ran across several references regarding Greek emigration and the ship (thus the original routing). That configuration apparently pretty much ended with WW I and the use as a barracks for wartime labor. I also ran across mentions about troops returning (U.S.? Still in migrant configuration?) aboard (blogs) postwar without much detail. The Monfalcone Museum page in Italian, the most detailed I found, notes the big change in 1936. The passenger capability became the usual incidental few of cargo ships and refrigeration for beef transport added. I did not even try to track characteristics for tonnage. Every modification altered that and there were several. So far I've been focusing on pre seizure but there may be bits about WSA days. I'd also be interested in finding seizure details. Almost all those interned Italian ships had crew related incidents ranging from one caught trying to smuggle a bottle of wine ashore to attempted scuttling. A part of my interest in ships, aside from personally having a few as "homes" for periods, is the window some of their histories provide to international and human events of significance but not well known. Austro-Hungarian Adriatic (Balkan) and Greek immigrant transport to the U.S.? I'd never given it thought. The shift in Adriatic shipping in 1919? Of course! Venice involved? Last time I was in Trieste the big object across the way outside our mooring was a beautiful ship with the great winged lion of Venice shining in gold on the stack. Palmeira (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link to Greek migration blog. Interesting. "Trieste (the Greek Tergesti) which along with Venice and Vienna were the three major European 'Greek Centers' of the pre-1821 period. Trieste continued to have a significant Greek population as late as 1912." and "Unione Austro-Americana, known also as Cosulich Line" was one of the major migrant lines of the region. Another window. I did not know of those cities being "Greek centers" or of the Greek Orthodox cathedral I must have walked past several times. Palmeira (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trieste was an independent city state from 1719-1891. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've moved that DAB page to a normal ship list title, with broadly the same content - I couldn't see any other Audacious ships that would be useful to add at this stage. Davidships (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

HMS Hermione (1782), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted move request

An editor has requested for FFG(X) to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Talk:FFG(X)#Requested move 9 October 2020, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). BilCat (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

templates used by this project nominated for merging

These templates:

• {{sclass}}
• {{sclass-}}
• {{sclass2}}
• {{sclass2-}}

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 22 § Template:Sclass

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nave Andromeda

The tanker Nave Andromeda is currently involved in a stowaway/hijacking incident off the Isle of Wight. There seems to be enough info out there to write an article on the ship, but much of her details are on sites that require registration. Plenty on news sites about the incident. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)