→City of Adelaide (1864): Don't be lazy, saberwyn |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of [[City of Adelaide (1864)]]. This appears on [[Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)]].[[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of [[City of Adelaide (1864)]]. This appears on [[Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)]].[[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
As a note, [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)]] (which I assume from the talk page is a WP:SHIPS guideline and consequently can be applied to all ships) provides the exact same advice on pronouns in its [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Pronouns]] section as the abovementioned MILHIST guideline. The SHIPS guideline has done so since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)&direction=next&oldid=503961641 September 2012], when it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Ships%2FGuidelines&diff=512970823&oldid=506243743 moved over] from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines]] to consolidate naming information <s>(I'm too lazy to look for when the advice was originally added to Guidelines)</s>. It was originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Ships%2FGuidelines&diff=206125758&oldid=183405591 added to Guidelines] from MILHIST in April 2008, following the consensus of project members at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_9#Using_feminine_pronouns_when_referring_to_ships]]. The shortcuts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SHIPPRONOUNS&action=history were] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SHE4SHIPS&action=history created] at the start of 2009... maybe those shortcuts should be redirected to the SHIPS naming convention page as a more valid target? -- <s>[[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 02:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</s> -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Chain boat navigation]] == |
== [[Chain boat navigation]] == |
Revision as of 02:36, 11 January 2015
Ships Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Main Project Page Talk |
---|
Things you can do |
|
Information and sources |
|
Autonomous spaceport drone ship
If someone here might be willing to review the new article Autonomous spaceport drone ship, especially with respect to its marine, ocean, and ship-type information, that would be greatly appreciated. In addition to a good set of marine-knowledgeable editor eyes on it, perhaps a ship infobox would be helpful, but I get confused on all the varieties of information that can go into those. You might also want to add your WikiProject tag to the Talk page; but since I am not a member, I'll leave that also to someone here who knows what s/he is doing. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- — It appears that one of your folks (User:Arb) kindly dropped by, added the ship infobox, made a number of other edits, and added the page to your project's list of page's monitored. Thanks to Arb! N2e (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Resolved
Additional question: ship or barge? (December 2014)
I wonder if some ship knowledgeable folks might take a look over at the Autonomous spaceport drone ship article once again, just to see if we non-ship editors have correctly classed this maritime vessel. Specifically, would like help on ensuirng the classification is correct. It was clearly a barge when initially launched in the late 1990s. It was refit in 2014, has a bunch of azithrusters, and may even be capable of self-propulsion over some distance, albeit at slow speeds. Furthermore, SpaceX, the new owner/leasor/(or whatever the correct term is) has explicitly named it the Autonomous spaceport drone ship; but hey, they're obviously an aerospace company. (see the CEO, Elon Musk's, original Twitter post announcing the ship and publicizing a photograph for the first time.)
So, to you nautical types, is it unambiguously a ship? Or still a barge? -- no matter what propulsion and refitting was done? I don't know. And it seems pointless to have the spaceflight geeks like me and others try to figure it out. Would very much appreciate some help. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps a self-propelled barge? Tupsumato (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Either or both, IMHO, if it is indeed self-propelled. Davidships (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Second try with Wikidata Ship class fallback
Editor Laddo has updated {{Infobox ship characteristics}}
so that as they become available, wikidata items will be used when not supplied in the article's infobox or when the parameter value is not specifically set to none
. A list of ship articles that are using wikidata is at Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata (currently only |Ship class=
).
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- This needs to be reverted - the few entries that I have checked are either incorrect (HMS A1 -which points to a DAB page) or either unreferenced or referenced to a wikipedia page - which is unacceptable. Article content should not be removed from the control of editors Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I found that Soviet submarine K-222 draws its class from wikidata as a Papa class submarine, which is itself a redirect to... Soviet submarine K-222. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- @GraemeLeggett: Click on the small Wikidata icon () beside each imported value to see the Wikidata item page that supplies it. Laddo (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to Trappist the monk, Wikipedia contributors still have full control on values that may be fulfilled from Wikidata:
- Every infobox that imports a ship class from Wikidata is listed under Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata - every imported value is clearly identified with a small Wikidata logo;
- If the import is inappropriate, it can be prevented by stating
ship class=none
in{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
, like in this case; - It does highlight issues to be resolved, such as Croatian patrol boat Šolta (OB-02);
- If Wikidata values are missing references, why not add them?
- This change is meant to support Wikipedia developers, in particular those from non-English languages. Please attempt to see how useful it can be, rather than see it as an annoyance.
- Laddo (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- When someone tries to correct faulty information that has been imported from Wikidata by trying to edit the Wikipedia article, they will find that the Ship class field isn't there - we cannot expect editors who are not experts to know to either add a non-existant field in the infobox or to go outside en:wiki and struggle with the dreadful user interface in wikidata to try and fix the problem. If data is to be added to articles it must be added directly (in conformance with local rules for doing so) so that local editors can see what's changed and fix it. Otherwise this is a recipe for changes being made to articles without any warning in the article history, no attribution, and no way to know whether an article is being vandalised remotely.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I share your concerns with "remote" vandalism; some joint WD-WP teams do work on preventing such situations. However for now the upgrade that I finally pushed onto the template will only display values that are not supplied "locally" -- any "local" value overrides the WD import. Of course it does not help editors to figure how to not display that infobox line at all. There is a nice description of this while scheme at Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics#Parameter_value_import_from_Wikidata. What about adding something - like a question mark - beside the small Wikidata icon, pointing to that piece of documentation? Laddo (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Incidently, where is the documentation for this change? We should not be making fundamental changes to functionality without documenting it or obtaining more consensus than the small discussion above - automatically importing article content for external sites needs to be much more widely discussed than this small discussion here as has site wide implications, not just affecting WikiProject Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ships project consensus was reached... in discussion just above this one. Wikidata is already widely used throughout Wikipedias, and not only the English one, see Category:Templates using data from Wikidata and Category:Wikidata. Laddo (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- So a discussion between three editors, where only one editor (yourself) actually fully backed the change represents consensus to fundamentally change thousands of articles? This is a site weide issue and requires more discussion before such fundamental changes to verification requirements are imposed on en:wiki.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- When someone tries to correct faulty information that has been imported from Wikidata by trying to edit the Wikipedia article, they will find that the Ship class field isn't there - we cannot expect editors who are not experts to know to either add a non-existant field in the infobox or to go outside en:wiki and struggle with the dreadful user interface in wikidata to try and fix the problem. If data is to be added to articles it must be added directly (in conformance with local rules for doing so) so that local editors can see what's changed and fix it. Otherwise this is a recipe for changes being made to articles without any warning in the article history, no attribution, and no way to know whether an article is being vandalised remotely.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it contemplated that editors will have to go Wikidata to edit infoboxes? Kablammo (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- In the other conversation, Editor Laddo wrote:
A WD team is actively working at supporting edits to Wikidata properties directly from a change in a WP infobox
. Is that safe? I don't know. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, what an editor adds to a local Wikipedia template is what gets displayed. As the template is written now, Wikidata will provide a value to
|Chip class=
only if that parameter is empty or omitted. If an editor sets the value of|Ship class=<anything>
then the template will display <anything>. To display nothing, in essence prevent autofilling by Wikidata, set|Ship class=none
. So, local always takes precedence over Wikidata. Right now,|Ship class=
in{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
is the only parameter that accepts (improperly formed) data from Wikidata.
- Yes, what an editor adds to a local Wikipedia template is what gets displayed. As the template is written now, Wikidata will provide a value to
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we make the category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata into a hidden category please? Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ship class in Infobox ship career
- off topic – split from #Second try with Wikidata Ship class fallback
(ec) Another question - why is there a Ship class field in both Infobox: ship career and Infobox: ship characteristics? Surely the field should only be in one? This leads to confusion like in HMS MeltonNigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine question, that.
|Ship class=
is in both{{Infobox ship career}}
and{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
. It is not in both templates because of anything related to the Wikidata change. Is there any reason why we shouldn't remove|Ship class=
from{{Infobox ship career}}
. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that most of the uses are accidental. However one possible reason is where a ship with multiple users who classify the ship differently - for example Colony-class frigates were also Tacoma-class frigates, or the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates that were sold to the Turkish navy becoming the G-class frigate.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
is not documented in Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career. The ship info box allows for multiple instances of{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
so it would seem appropriate to use one{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template to describe a ship's characteristics first as a Template:Sclass- and then with a second{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
template as a Template:Sclass2- including those details that distinguish one class from the other even if the only distinction is the class name.
- I suspect that most of the uses are accidental. However one possible reason is where a ship with multiple users who classify the ship differently - for example Colony-class frigates were also Tacoma-class frigates, or the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates that were sold to the Turkish navy becoming the G-class frigate.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Because this facility is available, it seems to me that
|Ship class=
in{{Infobox ship career}}
is inappropriate and should be removed.
- Because this facility is available, it seems to me that
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is articles like HSwMS Remus (28) where there are two infobox:careers but only one infobox:characteristics - adding an additional infobox for only one line of information does seem rather wasteful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Better I think than blurring the line between what is 'career' and what is 'characteristic'. Ok, so Instead of adding another
{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
, an alternative for HSwMS Remus (28) and similar ships might be:|Ship class={{sclass-|Spica|torpedo boat|1}} 1934–1940<br />{{sclass-|Romulus|destroyer|1}} 1940–1958
- Of course
{{plainlist}}
is more appropriate but<br />
is easier to do as an example. This particular ship is also odd in that Template:Sclass- is a redirect to Template:Sclass- but nowhere in that class article is Romulus class mentioned.
- Better I think than blurring the line between what is 'career' and what is 'characteristic'. Ok, so Instead of adding another
- I still think that
|Ship class=
should be removed from{{Infobox ship career}}
.
- I still think that
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Ship type parameter not showing in articles
I just noticed that |ship type=
parameter is not showing in the infoboxes, for example here, here, here, and here. Why is that? IMHO it is an extremely relevant field. Tupsumato (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It was removed for some reason with this edit. I've asked Laddo to fix this. Please report any other parameters not working correctly. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Pages may require a null edit to restore proper display.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Trappist. However, now that I'm looking at it and how it's used in the wild, I'm wondering if "type" is actually necessary. Looking at several random articles, neither "class" nor "type" are actually used very often, and "class" seems to often be used with the {{sclass}} template family, which may explain why Laddo (ping) merged the two fields? See USS Simon Bolivar (SSBN-641) and Russian submarine Kursk (K-141) as examples. I wonder if it would be useful to set up a tracking category for usage of both fields for the purpose of eventually re-merging the two fields (again, see the above examples for how this successfully works), after finding consensus of course. It's a bit tricky, since some articles only use class, and some only use type, so some solution does need to be found. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|Ship class=
and|Ship type=
have been separate parameters for a long time and they serve different but vaguely similar purposes; see the Usage guide. I don't foresee one subsuming the other.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not at all sure I understand what you just wrote. Can you expand on that and perhaps show examples?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Queen Elizabeth 2 was an ocean liner and a cruise ship; a steamship and then a motor vessel. Great Republic was a sailing vessel, a clipper, and a full-rigged (or ship-rigged) vessel; it carried both freight and passengers. Some ships were wooden, some of iron or steel, and some of composite construction. Some steamships had reciprocating engines and some had turbines. There were ships which simultaneously Liberty ships and tankers; other Liberty ships were bulk carriers. Most whalebacks were bulk freighters but one was a passenger vessel. Ships can be typed by function, construction, propulsion, and likely other characteristics as well. Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so what would need to be done to improve the template? What are the rules that dictate how we should specify type for ships such as you have described? List all known 'types' that defined the particular ship? Choose the one 'type' that is most often associated with the particular ship? Something else?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Kablammo and Trappist, I guess I failed to explain my position well enough. As it stands now,
|Ship class=
displays "Class & type: Whatever" while|Ship type=
displays "Type: Whatever". If both are used, this obviously creates an issue, but as I said before, the Sclass family is used quite a bit to display both class and type information in the class field. That's the immediate issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Kablammo and Trappist, I guess I failed to explain my position well enough. As it stands now,
- If
|ship class=
is used,|ship type=
should not be used. The latter is intended for vessels which do not belong to any particular class, which is the case for most ships (including sister ships which do not have an established class). There's nothing more to it. Tupsumato (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- If
- The Usage guide discourages simultaneous use of
|Ship class=
and|Ship type=
. Use of the{{sclass}}
family of templates in|Ship class=
seems a sensible thing to do since it accords with the instructions in the Usage guide. In your earlier post you wonderedif "type" is actually necessary
. I think it is because the Usage guide provides for its use when|Ship class=
is not used. This use is well demonstrated in the examples that Editor Tupsumato provided in the intial post of this discussion.
- The Usage guide discourages simultaneous use of
- There is a certain amount of benefit gained from using
{{sclass}}
with|Ship class=
.{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
doesn't have to figure out how to format the class name. To get the same functionality from{{Infobox ship characteristics}}
, we'd need to build in named parameters for the five{{sclass}}
positional parameters, plus something to indicate if the link should be hyphenated ({{sclass-}}
) and whether the class name should be rendered in italics or upright font ({{sclass2}}
). This allows editors a great deal of flexibility.
- There is a certain amount of benefit gained from using
- I think we will need to spend some time thinking on how to make improvements to this pair of parameters. For example, if Wikidata is ever going to be useful, it must give us a ship's class name and its type as separate items so that we can combine them as we see fit and apply correct formatting. I could imagine modifications to the
{{sclass}}
family that would act much like|Ship class=
acts now. The{{sclass}}
templates if written like this:{{sclass|||1}}
would automatically accept class name and ship type from the appropriate properties at wikidata. We can't do this now because the wikidata property P289 (ship class) contains the class name and the ship type and extraneous text and apparently there isn't a wikidata ship type property.
- I think we will need to spend some time thinking on how to make improvements to this pair of parameters. For example, if Wikidata is ever going to be useful, it must give us a ship's class name and its type as separate items so that we can combine them as we see fit and apply correct formatting. I could imagine modifications to the
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Move request
Can an admin move HMS St. Vincent (1908) to HMS St Vincent (1908) over the redirect for me? Apparently the Brits don't use a full stop when abbreviating "Saint". Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done and done. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- My thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Help Wanted: RMS Lusitania 100th Anniversary
On May 7th of this year we will observe the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential events in maritime history. May I suggest a full court press to get this article up to FA status in time for the anniversary? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Samson V (and I, II, III and IV)
bit surprised there's not an article on this series of sternwheelers yet, but then lots of the roster of BC ships still needs an article; Samson V' is the Samson V Museum in New Westminster. I'm not sure what dab to use for a Samson (sternwheelers) dab...or should each one be listed without a coordinating dab page. Lots of technical resources to create articles are here and here and here. I'm very busy right now in real life as well as in wikipedia, and I know there's people who specialize in "ship-bios" so dropping this here, and will try to remember to put them on List of historical ships in British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Articles need creating
Per discussion at talk:MS Norman Atlantic#Total number of persons aboard and recent events in the Adriatic Sea, articles need creating on MV Blue Sky M (IMO 7510690) and MV Ezadeen (IMO 6614279). Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
While stub-sorting I came across TSS Rathmore (1908). As usual when finding a stub with a disambiguation, I checked to see whether it was linked from the undisambiguated version: there's a redlink at TSS Rathmore. Normally I would move the article to the undisambiguated form, but I know ships are special ...
One question: Looking at WP:SHIPNAME I can't see anything which suggests adding a disambiguator to an unambiguous ship name. Is there a rule somewhere which this and many similar article titles are following, which mandates or allows the addition of an unnecessary date disambiguator? Or am I mis-reading WP:SHIPNAME?
Another question: Rummaging around in this sort of area, I found TSS Duke of Argyll (1909) and TSS Duke of Argyll (1956), linked nicely from a ship set index page at TSS Duke of Argyll, which is linked from a hatnote at Duke of Argyll. This all looked very sensible, disambiguation needed, used, and linked. But I then also found RMS Duke of Argyll (1928) (which wasn't included in that set index page, though I've now added it, and which doesn't have a redirect from RMS Duke of Argyll). Is it appropriate that the set index is still at "TSS", when one of its entries isn't TSS but RMS? Should it be renamed to something like Duke of Argyll (ship), or perhaps there be a redirect at that title for use in the Duke of Argyll page hatnote?
There was no mention of TSS Rathmore (1908) on the Rathmore disambiguation page, to which I've now added it. I thought this was an oversight in the creation of a new stub ... but then found it was created 4 years ago.
I can see there is a careful structure of ship names used by the cognoscenti, but I wonder whether there are enough helpful redirects, dab page entries, set indexes, etc to help the naive reader who just wants to find out about some ship which they find mentioned in a family history or other document?
Or have I just found a rare bad example? I see that TSS North Wall (1883) is linked by a redirect from TSS North Wall and a dab page entry at North Wall, just as it should be - though there's still the unexplained (or, I can't find the explanation) apparently unnecessary disambiguation.
I would hope that the policies on ship naming and ship name navigation would be such that for every ship "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname". And that there would be a clear note somewhere stating that date is/may be added to unambiguous ship names, if this is the case.
I'm not a ships expert, just a Wikignome who stub-sorts and mends dab pages etc and wants our readers to have as easy a time as reasonably possible in finding the stuff they are looking for. And to minimise the chance of some good faith editor creating a duplicate article (eg at "XXX Shipname" without a date) because there weren't enough links to help them find the existing one. Thanks for reading. PamD 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are plenty of articles that have unnecessary disambiguation - I regularly remove them when I come across them (for instance here). I think part of the issue is that some editors are in the habit of adding year of launch and hull/pennant numbers without checking first if there is another ship by that name, or perhaps more importantly, if there is another ship with that name that has an article.
- I'd say that as for the Duke of Argyles, the usual format for a set index that does not occupy the primary location is "List of ships named XXX", as in List of ships named HMS Victory. In this case, it should probably be located at List of ships named Duke of Argyle, so the prefix would not matter. I'd probably then redirect the TSS Northwall to the index page, unless one of the two ships could be demonstrated to be the primary topic (which is unlikely). Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I lean the other way and favour the disambiguation of all merchant ships by year of launch. Having the year of launch in the title of a redlinked article gives an additional starting point for researching said ship. Occasionally it is necessary to disambiguate by builder and year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Mjroots on this. Whether there is something already here or not there is fairly good reason to pin down the specific ship from the first byte. Even date, as noted above, is sometimes not enough. I can point to a case or two in which a name and a year can apply to two ships existing at the same time. Even in "authoritative" references ships get sometime confused. More than once in dealing with in print references I find that some author has confused a ship with another. Without tonnage and dates just the name of SS Japara (1930) (3,323 tons) and the much larger MS Japara (1938) (9,312 tons) have been confused more than once. Both were Dutch ships, both operated under U.S. Army control during WW II and on occasion the 1938 big ship appeared in the operating area of the smaller. Newm30 (talk) and I were having some fun with confusion there and vetting sources to make sure subsequent names attached to the original ships and not drift across the line. For a long time here and in some external references SS Monterey, the big Matson liner, got confused with a completely different ship even to a sometimes identical date when one took the launch date of one and completion date of the other. The big Matson liner was shown here as USAT Monterey for a long time even though the actual Army transport, never leaving the western Atlantic, was actually SS Haiti (1932) (the liner was completed 1932 to add to the confusion) renamed Monterey. Short of an exhaustive search through files that are not always the top Google hits and sometimes only in hard copy you cannot be certain there isn't another ship by the same name with somewhat similar characteristics that will appear in an article here. Personally I would like to see those official numbers, now IHO numbers, attached to every mention of a ship. Just for fun Matson was just one of the lines that recycled ship names with near abandon. It would make thins so much easier! As for articles here it would save some of the untangling and page moves when someone begins dealing with one of those easily confused ships if the original article "title" clearly dealt with one particular ship. As a further thought, I am leaning strongly toward titling things here with the original ship name. Take those Matson liners (and no few other lines) that tended to recycle names; the best known names that would aid in advertising more often than not. It is a whole lot easier to start from the original name/date foundation and list subsequent names than disentangle three, four or more articles using one of those names the companies chose to apply to different ships in quick succession because they were very well known and prominent. Palmeira (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Mjroots and Palmeira. Sometimes naming conventions just dont fit particular ship naming issues. That is why I always consult with respected editors or on this talk page for consensus. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, sometimes a year disambiguator isn't enough - q.v.SS Espagne (Anversois, 1909) and SS Espagne (Provence, 1909), where the builder has been used to differentiate the two ships. Mjroots (talk)
- Agree with Mjroots and Palmeira. Sometimes naming conventions just dont fit particular ship naming issues. That is why I always consult with respected editors or on this talk page for consensus. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- PamD's contribution is a timely wake-up call; she found, and I concur, that at present navigation and dabs are a mess. "XXX Shipname (date)" there would be a link, or a dab page entry, from both "XXX Shipname" and "Shipname" ought to be a clear requirement, though occasionally the last has to be "Shipname (ship)", I think - and this last is where I would put all ship set lists - that's the most helpful place for visitor to begin and, hopefully, never be more than two clicks away from the target (I am speaking of merchant ships here - I don't want to start a flame war). "Duke of Argyll" is a good example, where the list should obviously be at Duke of Argyll (ship). Japara (ship) would be much better also - or a Japara dab to cover also the present redirect; and due to our fixation with prefixes I suppose that MV Japara is needed as well as MS Japara. Davidships (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I am reading your suggestion correctly you propose a dab under NAME (SHIP) under which all the variants in prefix and launch dates and perhaps even hull numbers for government vessels would be listed. Essentially an index to ships of a given name. It would be a job, but I agree that would be the best consolidated start point for all those searching with only a ship name with nothing else to go on. There are many such people, finding old letters or records showing something that leads to "Granddad was on the Flying Dutchman aometime in the war. What do you have on this ship?" Here the consolidated dab would be the start point and, if done well with good descriptions serve as a very useful index. I have on occasion done a bit of that as with USS Monterey and would highly recommend that page get off the USS fixation here and be moved to just "Monterey (ship)" where every ship with that name is listed. It would have the additional advantage of being a single click from a higher level dab page such as Monterey (disambiguation) for those looking for ships. That said, I stand by my points above on pinning down a particular hull from the start to minimize confusion. Palmeira (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a problem with using (ship) as a disambiguator. That is a sailing vessel disambiguator for a full-rigged ship. Taking the above, we'd have Monterey (ship), Monterey (brig), Monterey (barque) etc. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, a good point. Well, the objective is clarity and ease of use; when "Monterey" is put in the search box, the drop down menu should take one direct to the ship list page. As there will always be more than one entry in a list, perhaps Shipname (ships) or Shipname (list of ships)? Davidships (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a problem with using (ship) as a disambiguator. That is a sailing vessel disambiguator for a full-rigged ship. Taking the above, we'd have Monterey (ship), Monterey (brig), Monterey (barque) etc. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I am reading your suggestion correctly you propose a dab under NAME (SHIP) under which all the variants in prefix and launch dates and perhaps even hull numbers for government vessels would be listed. Essentially an index to ships of a given name. It would be a job, but I agree that would be the best consolidated start point for all those searching with only a ship name with nothing else to go on. There are many such people, finding old letters or records showing something that leads to "Granddad was on the Flying Dutchman aometime in the war. What do you have on this ship?" Here the consolidated dab would be the start point and, if done well with good descriptions serve as a very useful index. I have on occasion done a bit of that as with USS Monterey and would highly recommend that page get off the USS fixation here and be moved to just "Monterey (ship)" where every ship with that name is listed. It would have the additional advantage of being a single click from a higher level dab page such as Monterey (disambiguation) for those looking for ships. That said, I stand by my points above on pinning down a particular hull from the start to minimize confusion. Palmeira (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but then I wonder how many average searchers know that level of detail. While people in this discussion might well do the initial entry as NAME (BRIG) I would guess most non "ship people" might not. Thus all those very specific types of sailing vessels should also be listed in the disambigulation page reached by "Monterey (ship)" here. Thus, any article about this craft might be included on that page as "Monterey (yacht)" with brief description. Let's look at it from the viewpoint of someone not having a clue about brigs, barques, full rigged ships or motor vessels/ships. They just try the name and get Monterey (disambiguation) with, instead of the list that I believe I added there, a one click link to a list of every floating craft named Monterey with our (sometimes) more knowledgeable title description and those brief descriptions giving an idea of type, size, dates and nationality and so on. I doubt we can cover every search term someone might try, but even I would find such an index to all we know about vessels that existed with links to those covered here occasionally useful. For one thing it could be a repository for brief information we have about red link ships for which many of us may have information but no interest in developing an "article" about.
- I think it is worth doing some thinking, even "engineering" analysis, on how best serve uninformed and informed searchers—avoid the dreaded endless "press x" for menu options of business phones so to speak—whit a combination of disambiguation ship list pages that are themselves better categorized. Palmeira (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- So "(ship)" cannot be used at present to distinguish a vessel from another entity of the same name, or as the name of a set index, because in 18 cases (I've just counted in Category:Full-rigged ships and its subcat) it's used as a disambiguator, as a short-hand for "(full-rigged ship)"? Might it be that these 18, if they have to be distinguished from other vessels, should be moved to "(full-rigged ship)", leaving "(ship)" free to be used in other situations? Just another thought from an outsider! Glad to see that my comments have sparked off some discussion. PamD 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is inadequate to distinguish between vessels or vessel types. It, or something even more generic is, in my proposed solution, only enough to get one to a page listing vessels with the same name with enough specifics to actually make the distinction—and as noted above with two ships built the same year named Anversois a (year) is not even enough in some cases. As with personal names, certain ship names are somewhat popular, so putting "John Smith" on a wanted poster is pretty worthless without more—lots of "false positives" there. That is why we even get articles conflating ships, I even did it myself a month ago and I've had decades of ship experience with an extensive reference library. That is why I am proposing ship lists by name that are the default "hit" for a naive ship search, i.e., type in the name and a word indicating it is a ship, boat, vessel, craft (those possible alternatives are the hitch!) and that page comes up with detail enough to see there is an article or that, if not, "your" ship isn't covered but a hint at what it really is for further search. Palmeira (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
An illustration of a problem with the approach I suggest can be seen at Corsair where an editor insists ships have to be included in transportation, no red links and no pipelines. Palmeira (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: Clarityfiend (talk) has clarified things about dab pages not being ship lists—and I now tend to agree—so that may help with an approach. A general dab page, say "Monterey" or "Mariposa" covering a wide variety, would have a single link to the NAME (ship) list page that would be a more complete ship index. That would be a two click move from a bare "Mariposa" entry to a page with enough information to distinguish which Mariposa is the likely subject and, if covered here, a third click to the correct page. For the reasons I mention above, such a list would help editors here as a quick reference of a list for sanity checks they indeed have the right ship and even potential new articles. Palmeira (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a related request, can someone move HMS Bat (1896) to HMS Bat as this appears to be the only ship of this name to serve in the Royal Navy.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Infobox question
If a ship was derelict for a very long time, would you create a infobox ship career entry for this? For example, MV Kalakala was beached and used as a canning factory for nearly 30 years, and then was repeatedly moved around as various owners tried to find money to restore it. Would you create a ship career of 1967-1998 as shrimp processing building, and as 1998-2015 as attempting restoration? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- While I'd probably try to fit everything in a single career box, having multiple boxes for different stages of the career is just as acceptable. However, you shouldn't try to cram too much information into the infobox — use the article body for elaborate descriptions. Tupsumato (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
All-green flag on early 17th century Spanish warship?
I asked[1] about this at the Reference Desk earlier, but got not reply. I thought I'd try it here as well:
I'm passing on a question by Christopher Braun regarding a painting by Cornelis Verbeeck. What is the green flag flown from the mizzen mast of the Spanish ship (to the left) in this painting?
I've searched around a bit, but can't find references to all-green flag relating to any specific Habsburg territory. My guess is a command flag squadron commander (rear admiral?), but I don't know if these were flown from the mizzen in the early 1600s. The red flag on the stern of the Dutch ship is apparently a signal flag showing intention to engage in combat. The red and yellow flag appears to be the flag of Enkhuizen in North Holland.
Peter Isotalo 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is it the flag of Cubillas de Rueda? Mjroots (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
City of Adelaide (1864)
Participants in WikiProject Ships may wish to comment on the Style Proposal in Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion now closed due to (1) unanimity of responses and (2) breach of WP:SHIPPRONOUNS validating the proposal. (WP:SNOW seems to apply in this instance.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)- It seems odd that this discussion was closed in less than two days, and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Pronouns, which applies to naval vessels, is being applied to merchant ships. Kablammo (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did not participate in the discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with applying WP:SNOW, and as far as naval vs. merchant ships, I don't know that anyone has specifically made that point that WP:SHE4SHIPS applies specifically warships, and warships only. As far as I am aware, the underlying principle applies to all vessels, regardless of the specific location in the MoS. And this particular vessel did spend a couple of decades in RN service, so it's not entirely inappropriate to apply the principle either way. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I too was under that misimpression, but the guide is clear: The Military history WikiProject's style guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the content and structure of articles within the scope of the project. True, this vessel spent some time as a naval vessel, but it was built and operated as a merchant ship, and it is known here by its civilian name. Kablammo (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, but nearly all other subsection shortcuts are prefixed "WP:MILMOS", WP:SHIPPRONOUNS/WP:SHE4SHIPS isn't. I will add a clarification to the section. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mj, I have restored the prior language, as the Mil Hist project should not dictate conventions for articles outside its scope. That is not a precedent we should want. I don't doubt that the substance of the change would have broad support here, but we should not have another project be able to dictate this project's preferences. Kablammo (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, but nearly all other subsection shortcuts are prefixed "WP:MILMOS", WP:SHIPPRONOUNS/WP:SHE4SHIPS isn't. I will add a clarification to the section. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I too was under that misimpression, but the guide is clear: The Military history WikiProject's style guide is intended to provide recommendations regarding the content and structure of articles within the scope of the project. True, this vessel spent some time as a naval vessel, but it was built and operated as a merchant ship, and it is known here by its civilian name. Kablammo (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did not participate in the discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with applying WP:SNOW, and as far as naval vs. merchant ships, I don't know that anyone has specifically made that point that WP:SHE4SHIPS applies specifically warships, and warships only. As far as I am aware, the underlying principle applies to all vessels, regardless of the specific location in the MoS. And this particular vessel did spend a couple of decades in RN service, so it's not entirely inappropriate to apply the principle either way. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems odd that this discussion was closed in less than two days, and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Pronouns, which applies to naval vessels, is being applied to merchant ships. Kablammo (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
More important than this discussion, please see the request for information on apparent financial difficulties of those in charge of City of Adelaide (1864). This appears on Talk:City of Adelaide (1864).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a note, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships) (which I assume from the talk page is a WP:SHIPS guideline and consequently can be applied to all ships) provides the exact same advice on pronouns in its Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Pronouns section as the abovementioned MILHIST guideline. The SHIPS guideline has done so since September 2012, when it was moved over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines to consolidate naming information (I'm too lazy to look for when the advice was originally added to Guidelines). It was originally added to Guidelines from MILHIST in April 2008, following the consensus of project members at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_9#Using_feminine_pronouns_when_referring_to_ships. The shortcuts were created at the start of 2009... maybe those shortcuts should be redirected to the SHIPS naming convention page as a more valid target? -- saberwyn 02:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) -- saberwyn 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi ship lovers. I've just finished an initial translation of the above article and hope to run it for a DYK. I'd also like to try and get it to B class status if possible. Hope you enjoy it anyway! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)