Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 76

Archive 70

←

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Way's Packet Directory

Does anyone have access to a copy of this? I'm interested to see if there's anything about the Ed Howard (also known as Howard or Edward Howard) beyond what is included already in the article for the warship it became, CSS General Polk. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The search doesn't reveal any info. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Marine Engineering News

The Marine Engineering News was first published in April 1879. Covers mostly UK shipping, with some foreign. Useful for improving articles about ships of that era. I've added the first four volumes to WP:SHIPS/R#Country specific sources. More will be added later. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be the same as The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect, of which there is several volumes in the Internet Archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Civilian ships dabbing

Our guidance for dabbing civil and military ships is different. For civilian ships it says The date of launching should be used if there are several ships with the same name. For military ships it is further qualified with In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation. I feel that the civilian ship guidance should have a similar qualification when the ship is acquired and renamed. The existing guideline causes the resultant dates to be confusing as on MS Oscar Wilde where we have a ship launched in 1986 which served as Wilde between 2007 and 2019, another launched in 2007 which served as Wilde between 2023 and 2024 and now one launched in 2010 which serves as Wilde from 2024. Currently under the guidance they would be dabbed as 1986, 2007 and 2010 respectively whereas it would be better if they were dabbed 2007, 2023 and 2024 which gives an accurate idea of when they first served under that name. It also strikes me as strange that we should treat military ships and civil ships differently Lyndaship (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The year of launch is the best dab, because that is fixed. Ships sometimes get renamed to a name they have carried before. If a ship was launched in 1976, renamed Foo in 1979, renamed Bar in 1982 and renamed Foo in 1987, which dab would you apply? This is why we use the year of launch. Where there are more than one ship of the same name launched in the same year, we can add the builder as a further disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots' logic. Weshmakui (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships.

There is a merge discussion here: Talk:List of current ships of the United States Navy § Proposed merge of Future of the United States Navy into List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Outrigger

I would like to add a disambiguation parenthetical for Outrigger to distinguish from the video game. Taking a look at Category:Watercraft components, Category:Sailboat components, Category:Shipbuilding, and Category:Naval architecture, it seems there are a number of options to choose from: (ship), (watercraft), (nautical), (naval architecture), (marine), (boating), (boat building), (ship building), (ship part), (ship construction), and potentially more that I missed.

In spirit of WP:BOLD I went ahead with (nautical), but I am leaving this comment here to document potential disambiguation... ambiguity? Tule-hog (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ship template for Scharnhorst

Is there any way that {{ship}} can be got to work for German battleship Scharnhorst? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Does this not work for you?

{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst}} → German battleship Scharnhorst

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for something equivalent to Agamemnon i.e. chop out the shortest version of the name without all the extra stuff in the article title. The fact that doesn't work (for me, at least) appears to be a function of the way the article is named. I'm just checking that I'm not missing something really obvious. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiil the following do what you want?

{{ship|German battleship|Scharnhorst||2}} → Scharnhorst

— Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)—

I could have sworn I'd already tried that, but clearly I hadn't. Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

YW Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Navy ship Palestine

Hello everybody. At one time, Palestinian security forces used the former fishing trawler Chandalahe for military purposes; Israel damaged it in 2002 and since then it has been abandoned off the coast of Gaza. I wanted to know what his current fate is? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vyacheslav84 Does it even have a Wikipedia page? Alexysun (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun No. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Type 001, Type 002, Type 003, and so on in terms of the Chinese aircraft carriers really its own class?

Is Type 001, Type 002, Type 003 in terms of the Chinese aircraft carriers really a "class" of ships if they only have one ship per Type 001, Type 002, Type 003, and so on? Seems to me that it seems to be just a name for the ship before they choose an official name, because it's only one ship. There are not two Type 001s etc. Does my question make sense. Alexysun (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes your question does make sense. I would suggest the usual way of doing things; that is for single ship classes to have just one page like Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū. That being said, Type 003 is not finished yet and could have multiple ships to that design. However for Type 001 and Type 002, the question is pertinent. Llammakey (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay got it, so it's good as it is right now. Alexysun (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hoax

I've tagged Draft:USS ambatukummers, which claims to be an article on a Freedom-class littoral combat ship for speedy deletion as a hoax.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Bayesian

Following yesterday's sinking, a new article has been created on the vessel involved - Bayesian. It needs improvement. Feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

SS Aberdeen (1881)

Would someone be able to rate/re-rate SS Aberdeen (1881), perhaps in the light of [[1]]?

In case it needs declaring, yes I do have an interest in this article. I feel it is important as this is the first ship with a triple expansion engine that was commercially successful, so making steamships commercially competitive with sail on all routes. I think that the article is largely complete as all the notable points about the ship are covered.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 13:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. Kablammo (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the rating from A to B, as A-class articles usually require a formal review process which I don't believe WP:SHIPS embraces anymore. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox needs expansion (port of registry, identification). More detail could be given about the engine, Lloyd's Register is your friend. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Pre-dreadnought battleship

I have nominated Pre-dreadnought battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Omaha Beach#Pictures of ships involved in landings

Would anyone like to comment on Talk:Omaha Beach#Pictures of ships involved in landings? I probably need some independent views on the matter after reading some sources with impassioned views about the British (largely naval) contribution to that part of D-Day being ignored, even denied, by some historians. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

SS United States Review

Hello all,

I have been working to re-do the entire SS United States article, and with her fate now likely sealed, I thought it would be fitting to have the article reviewed for GA status. I would appreciate other people reviewing the article as well, especially for readability and flow.

Thanks!

GGOTCC (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

SS (?MV) Prince Baudouin

Does anyone have the references to put together an article for SS (?MV) Prince Baudouin. Online I can find [2] which suggests an interesting story. One point not clear to me is whether this ship became "HMS" during her war service. The IWM seem to think so [3], but not the marine interviewed at [4]. Possible usable photo at [5]. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Another online source[6] – I have no idea if this is an RS, but gives a date of commissioning as HMS.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A usable photo from an RS[7] ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think that HMS is probably right, but I don't have the more detailed standard RN books - she was registered under British flag 1941-46 in the name of the Ministry of War Transport, which may have been a prerequisite to commissioning in the RN. Certainly not "SS", as a diesel ship, though I would favour Prince Baudouin (ship) (can be "ship 1933" if the ealier one of 1872 ever gets an article).

There are a couple of published books that cover the Belgian Government ferries - Dover-Ostend Line (John Hendy, ISBN-13: 978-0951350652) and Railway Ships and Packet Ports (Richard Danielson, ISBN-13: 978-0906294642) - which should arrive here in a few days. I rather suspect that that Dover website, as well as the Belgian site which covers the histories of all 60 vessels during the 151-year history of the Ostend service, would be considered self-published non-RS. But they are useful in pointing the way to acceptable sources. Also, there's an existing Commons photo. - Davidships (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A good source: Un siècle d'évolution des paquebots, Ostende-Douvres (pp234-240), 1946. Davidships (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Another source is P&O Heritage Factsheet - PRINCE BAUDOUIN (1934) which gives a commissioning date as 8 November 1943 as an infantry assault vessel and lists her armament. She had been previously operated as a troopship, but not commissioned. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

One frustrating reference on this particular point is Whitmarsh, Andrew (2024). D-Day Landing Craft: How 4,126 ‘Ugly and Unorthodox’ Allied Craft made the Normandy Landings Possible. Cheltenham: The History Press. ISBN 978-1-80399-445-1. which, from the index, has five mentions, plus six for the index entry, which are two HMS and four SS. From the primary source (above)[8] it is clear that HMS is correct from the time the interviewee became a crew member, as he was ex-merchant navy and commissioned into RN under some special scheme, in his case because the navy was very short of expertise in marine diesel engines. (Should have been obvious to me from the outset!) This also confirms MV rather than SS.

• The primary source's account of the special route into the RN for him may be of interest to other related subjects.

I have read somewhere (and cannot remember where) that these fast North Sea ferries were stripped of some of their upper-works on conversion to landing ships. That makes sense if they have to remain stable with the weight of landing craft on davits. Comparison of the commons photo and the Naval Heritage and History Command photo (above) seems to confirm that (but is WP:OR).
Thanks for all the assistance so far. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The "legend" of S-5's conversation before rescue

Please see WT:MILHIST#The "legend" of S-5's conversation before rescue. It involves the potentially apocryphal story at USS S-5#Rescue. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Blue Origin landing platform" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blue Origin landing platform has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 8 § Blue Origin landing platform until a consensus is reached. 64.229.88.34 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Leander 1799 query

Can anybody help with an enquiry at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Leander ships? please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 September 7. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Question on a crane vessel

I'm working on the article SMS Viper, a German gunboat that was eventually converted into a crane. The sources I have state she was in service until at least 1962, but no further details. Any commercial shipping people out there able to find anything after that? So far I've struck out, but this isn't my area of expertise. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - have you tried looking at the relevant editions of Lloyd's Register, linked from WP:SHIPS/R? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

Marine Engineer

I'm having difficulty finding Volume 5 of the Marine Engineer (Apr 1883-Mar 1884) online. It should be available, so if anyone can provide a link I would be grateful. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If all else fails, I will be visiting a library that has (all? or most) editions of the journal in November. if no one else responds, is there a specific piece you are looking for? GGOTCC (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I was hoping for an url that is publicly available. The "Launches and Trial Trips" section is what I'm looking at. I've been working on the list of ship launches in 1883, but I have other sources available. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

inadvertent plagiarism

I made this edit[9] to alter some text that inadvertently plagiarised the source. Describing the situation without copying turned out to be not as easy as one might first think as most of the sentence is the names of ships and there seems only one logical order in which to make the point. Hence using the precise terminology ("working up") of the source makes this look a lot worse. It has now been put back to the problem text with this[10] with an edit summary that I feel misses the point (it is whether Wikipedia plagiarises the source, not an individual editor). It seems excessive to involve an administrator in this, but I would appreciate an experienced editor taking a look.

I am posting here as the article talk page does not appear to be on many watch lists.

I have a busy day and don't know when I will be back on Wikipedia.
Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for USS Texas (BB-35)

USS Texas (BB-35) has been nominated for a 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 5 § USS Dory (SS-352)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 5 § USS Dory (SS-352). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Flag of convenience

Flag of convenience has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What defines a ship class?

I'm in a bit of a bind here when looking at the Barracuda/Suffren class of submarines. In short, the design is called Barracuda-class by the manufacturer (Naval Group; they sold other Barracudas to the Netherlands) and Suffren-class by the French Navy. Is there a guideline of sorts as to how ship families should be named? I see for instance the Kilo-class submarines are just that, independent of their country of deployment, and same thing goes for the Agosta-class. But the category is a big mess so I'm quite unsure of the proper convention. Any input/advice is welcome. Superboilles (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Some related discussion from January: Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (ships)#More guidance for naming conventions for class articles. Tupsumato (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks a lot, and in fact exactly what I needed. Superboilles (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of it depends on the general consensus of sources (if there is one), and sometimes you have to make a judgement call. As an example, I had to deal with this several years ago in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Help on Finding Ship's Sailing status

I have been reading secondhand reports from people involved with the San Diego Maritime Museum that HMS Surprise (replica ship) is not actively sailing, that work is focused on static preservation on the ship and that after hauling it to a dock earlier this year the decision was made to not renew the ship's licensing with the Coast Guard as an active sailing ship; with no plans in the future to bring it back to sail. From what I understand, this allows the museum to focus on maintaining their other active ships while doing conservation work on the Surprise with a focus on static display.

However, all of these reports are secondhand via Reddit and other social media comments; and the museum has not made any official statements regarding the ship's long term plans. I am pretty unfamiliar with finding ship information, is there any sort of source like a registration record that can be used to confirm if the ship is active or not? The article as it stands is written as if the ship still is sailing regularly, but from what I can tell the only times it has moved in the last few years has been under tow to and from docks for repair work. It makes the article seem dated, but without a better source I really don't know how to approach fixing the article. I did put in a "citation needed" tag earlier today on one of the bigger claims the ship is actively sailing, but is just a band-aid solution. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

TfD: Single-use short sub-templates for Spruance-class destroyer infoboxes

I have listed 11 short sub-templates that had previous been included only by the {{Spruance class destroyer infobox ship characteristics}} infobox subtemplate — see the TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 25 § Single-use short sub-templates for Spruance-class destroyer infoboxes.  — sbb (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wreck of the Mexico#Requested move 6 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wreck of the Mexico#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate Wikidata pages for "Kolomna-class cargo ship"

There are two Wikidata pages for the Kolomna class of cargo steamships, built in Rostock in the 1950s. (Q1779579) links to the German Wikipedia article "Kolomna (Schiffstyp)". (Q25230999) links to the English article "Kolomna-class cargo ship". I do not know how to fix this. I would be grateful if someone who knows how Wikidata works were to delete Q25230999 and link the English article to Q1779579 and the German article.

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe Tagishsimon is an expert on Wikidata matters. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Launceston Castle

Talk:HMS Launceston Castle states in the talk page header "This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale."!!! As the page is very much in existance, something is clearly wrong here, presumably associated with the articles recent move from HMS Launceston Castle (K397) to HMS Launceston Castle, but I cannot see why and how this can be fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that - it seems like normal to me? Maybe try refreshing the page and see if that fixes it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I just redid the stub entry on the bannershell. It should show up as stub now. Llammakey (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bulk carrier

Bulk carrier has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)