Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Project merge with shipwrecks?

About two months ago I left a note at wt:shipwrecks about a possible merge into Ships. There hasn't been any conversation on the matter and I don't know if Shipwrecks is basically abandoned or not. The editor who started the project hasn't edited in a couple of years. Seeing as it's highly likely that a shipwreck article will also have a ships tag in place I'm not really sure of the need for two separate projects. Maybe some conversation here will result in a solution. --Brad (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a merge, but maybe Shipwrecks could be a task force? Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a shipwreck taskforce/sub-project would probably be the best way to go, on the logic that 99.9% of shipwrecks are going to be...you know... ships. Would be dependant on members of the shipwreck project agreeing...if there is no more comment there, it might be worth bouncing the talkpages of the thirty-odd members. -- saberwyn 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A task force is the thought I had. Pinging the talk pages of the current member list is a good idea. I dislike the idea that the project would get merged without any comment from them, yet the message has been sitting there for over two months. --Brad (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgot about this issue but have not had the time to follow through. Unless someone wants to volunteer instead. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I notified all listed project members. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all this effort, Brad. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There were responses from 3 people who claim the project should remain where it is. Why exactly, I don't know, seeing as I had to pry a conversation out of them. IMO the shipwrecks project is inactive and bordering on abandoned but at this point it can just sit there. I've got better things to do. --Brad (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As a member of both projects, I'll restate here that a merge would be a good idea. WikiProject Ships, to me, is better organized and there is a overlap in coverage naturally. Shinerunner (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I don't think Mistral (L9013) is named properly, but what should its title be? - BilCat (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

French ship Mistral (L9013) should do the trick. --Brad (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this kind of national ship-category naming. Should every ship be named that way, we'll get American ship ......, Dutch ship ......, German ship .... and even Ship of the Dominican Republic ...... --Stunteltje (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For navies that have never used a ship prefix we have been using the Country of origin as a naming convention. The US Navy and the Royal Navy use the prefix USS and HMS respectively. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Which are official acronyms that mean "United States Ship" and "Her (British) Majesty's Ship" (A better commonwealth example would be HMCS = "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship"), which is more-or-less the same as the naming convention using "German ship", "French ship" etc. -- saberwyn 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also extensive misuse of "USS" that is more than a little "glitch" among Navy people. Only commissioned ships carry that term and it is dropped as soon as that status is lost. It is not a trivial matter in U.S. Navy circles and such misuse shows lack of accuracy. There are commissioned ships with "USS" and other ships "in service" with civilian crews that are U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) and then there are "in service" vessels that carry no designator other than a number. The other real mess here is the use of U.S. Army Transport (U.S.A.T.) for almost every vessel the Army had during WW II. Not so at all. The Army was never quite the stickler the Navy is about USS but the majority of Army vessels were never "USAT" at all. For example, the numerous FS group was simply U.S. Army FS-288 as shown in the linked photo. The tugs and most other general service vessels used the same format. Specialized vessels often carried "U.S. Army" and a special name. At least in some documents and photos that was the case with U.S. Army Cable Ship (USACS) though I know of one photo showing one using USAT, Cable Ship and the name. If Wikipedia is going to be seen as accurate with respect to U.S. ships these items need correction but they are extensive and not all that suitable for bot work. Palmeira (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing with limiting the use of USS to that single use is that those ships whose construction was begun but not completed is a true dilemma. The established convention is to title the article with USS and explain in a footnote as evidenced by FA/A/GAs: USS Illinois (BB-65), USS Kentucky (BB-66), USS Hawaii (CB-3). Such a move to limit the usage of USS to just commissioned would need massive consensus because it has withstood two FACs plus a few A-Class reviews and GANs. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly, it is a serious breach of U.S. Navy convention and ship "etiquette" regardless of Wikipedia FACs and A-Class reviews. Take a look at Naval Historical and Heritage Command, Ship Naming in the United States Navy, A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes for exactly how ships under construction are dealt with. It is not good for Wikipedia to decide to go against what is established by Executive Order and Navy Regulations in U.S. Naval usage matters. It will bring lots of eye rolling from Navy experts and certainly does no good to any reputation for accuracy. Wikipedia through such a process could decide to call U.S. states territories if it chooses. This casual usage of "USS" is not too dissimilar, a matter of formal status, and appears amateurish. Perhaps another round of FACS and A-Class reviews is needed for accuracy's sake. Palmeira (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are relative new here, and wikipedia does not follow every single rule that the US Military has established nor do we strive for accuracy in every single detail. The use in the three articles I listed above are for not only convenience with the myriad of other articles, but also because those names are what the majority of persons would search for when looking for that particular ship — not to mention our linking templates: {{USS}}, {{USNS}}, etc. and for appearances in featured topics. Also, the naming is within the regulations set forth by our naming conventions and your moves of ship articles may be going against those. I hereby request that you cease moving articles until a thorough discussion has come up with the proper consensus (Wikipedia is based upon consensus, and everything does need to be discussed). -MBK₀₀₄ 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be new here but am far from new to ships, Navy and maritime and military history. My comparison to deciding to call states territories is quite accurate. There is a difference, one having status and legal ramifications. So it is with the formal designation of a ship in or not in commission. You have the cite to a good discussion at NHHC on the facts. Wikipedia can be a "club of buffs" making its own facts out of opinion or it can be a serious group of people trying to present accurate articles. If the former it will deserve the ridicule it sometimes gets--our local schools have a strict ban, automatic fail, for "Wiki cites" by students. So, it is up to this community to decide whether it is going to embarrass itself in knowledgeable circles or not. We all blunder. Intentional factual neglect is serious. I will refrain from further moves but will in no way contribute to intentional error and inaccuracy. As for how users initiate searches? Wikipedia's operational tools of disambiguation and redirect offer better solutions than ever found in hard copy encyclopedias. In my opinion the best thing for the reputation of this group is to strive for accuracy and use the tools to help the uninformed find accuracy. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Palmeira, thanks for engaging in discussion on here, but realize that you are arguing against years of established policies. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but change—if it is to happen—will take some time. Their featured or A-class status should not be affected; it's the policy you have a problem with, not the articles.

Now, on to replying to everyone else here. Ignoring all of the agreed-upon conventions and the arguments for standardization for the moment, Palmeira does have a point. For example, we don't use prefixes like "HIMJS" or anything similar to that because we don't to be a "'club of buffs' making its own facts out of opinion". I'm not sure Palmeira's concerns are all that different. It's not like we don't have a disambiguator if we move the articles—we can use the designations (i.e. "Hawaii (CB-3)") and redirect the old names (i.e. USS Hawaii (CB-3)) to the new.
Does anyone have an idea on how many articles we would be talking about moving here? On first glance I thought it would be a lot, but many of the never-built ships don't have articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

From my read of things, Palmeira is arguing that if any ship does not legally have a "USS" prefix, the article shouldn't. To me, this means that all decommissioned ships (i.e. nothing in active service now, as they no longer legally carry the prefix) need to be moved to a non-prefix title. But I'm Australian, and although a similar case exists in the Royal Australian Navy (ships outside of commission should not be referred to as "HMAS") common usage by the general public, which is who Wikipedia should be catering to, uses the prefix to identify Australian warships at all stages of life. -- saberwyn 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) My misinterpretation of your statements are noted. -- saberwyn 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not even doable without rivaling the NVR and Ship's History Branch at NHHC with their reporting systems to monitor exact current and historical status--and even they slip up now and then on some published detail. I think this is "doable" with redirects to help the casual and often not very enlightened public rather than further muddle the subject. The issue of basic nationality is already handled for "foreign" ships. I think a simple standard without a U.S. slant makes sense generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're sitting in the pentagon and talking about ships, it might be obvious what you mean if you say "the North Carolina". But without additional context, there's no chance that someone would understand what I mean if I say "the North Carolina" (particularly if we're discussing it in North Carolina, where it's now a museum ship). "Battleship North Carolina" and "USS North Carolina" would be understood by most people, I would think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First, in no way would I recommend removing "USS" from a ship here that was once commissioned. Ships move in and out of commission and even Navy will refer to a ship once in commission as "USS (NAME)" for general historic purposes. Being once in commission does have a certain status historically. We can handle those fine points in the info box with dates if necessary. The issue is for ships never commissioned. Let me illustrate the problem here in a more specific way than the state/territory analogy. What would people think if Wikipedia contributors "decided" to no longer make a distinction between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers? A general is an officer and so is a corporal so we treat them all alike because we want to or got started that way and want to continue? You can imagine the ridicule in circles beyond the profession if we decided to simplify and just call everyone above E-1 an officer! There is a distinct and legal difference. I won't go into all the ins, outs and maybes here but in very simplistic terms a ship in commission can attack, stop, board another vessel with only the question of national policy and responsibility--an act of war. There is question, a debated one, since the Declaration of Paris abolished privateering as to whether such an action by a non-commissioned ship is not an illegal privateer and the personnel aboard (remember, no commissioned officer in command either) might be subject to arrest and international trial for piracy. So, yes, it isn't just Naval officers spinning with casual usage. It bears on the status, even if for a time, of a ship as a warship of the United States. I recognize the problem of international users. I would suggest adoption of another way to identify general nationality than adopt such inaccuracy and bring into real question the seriousness of articles. Today I put up an example, an armed Army vessel, FS-255 "commissioned" (on a very notable day in fact) with a Coast Guard crew and had a commissioned officer in command. That ship could never be "USS so there is a similar problem I think I solved. Palmeira (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dank, he's saying that articles like USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) need to be renamed because, as they were never commissioned, they never legally recived the "USS" prefix. See the notes at the beginning of each article. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to the best of us! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, except the note itself is not entirely accurate. Perhaps the hulls under construction or ships never in commission are "conventionally" referred to as "USS" in some circles. Not so in either official circles or those that really deal with USN interest groups. That is part of my point. Any site claiming non-amateur status on such vessels and matters would be subject of ridicule by its core interest groups of ex-Navy (They really do take this seriously.) and not do what is being done here. Look at some samples: DANFS: Illinois (BB-65), NavSource: BB-66 KENTUCKY and Haze Gray DANFS BB index. Notice that NavSource does use the less strictly accurate, but acceptable, USS for ships that were once in commission as with BB-55 USS North Carolina. That is the pattern I advocate here. We can continue to flaunt lack of awareness or make the fairly minor edits and moves with redirects to join those that follow more accurate Naval usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic at hand, it appears that many of the articles in Category:Active naval ships of France do not precisely follow WP:NC-SHIP. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is limited to the use of USS and HMS in articles at the moment I am incline to say that the USS and HMS should stay in the article. Most people in the world use USS and HMS, and in some cases even invent such prefixes, when discussing ships, and it therefore stands to reason that these same people will apply that to the article to which they aim to seek. Under the policy we have of listing names under the common named used I am of the mind that USS and HMS should remain in articles we have for ships never legally built with a provision in the articles in question that the ship was never legally USS or HMS, but that owing to our conventions such prefixes have been added for ease of use. To be fair to all sides, I might suggest that a request for comment be made so both Palmiera's side and our side can be presented to the community and they can decided which should take presidence here in accordance with our views on consensus. I caution though that this is likely to favor the pro USS/HMS crowd since our position has established and has been for some time, but opinions do change over time (otherwise we wouldn't have an FAR(C) process here) and we should respect that this is an issue that may - may I grant - be worth another look. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Tom on and RFC. However, there is another issue, which is directly related to the French ship naming issue, and that is how should the non-USS USN ships articles be titled? Simply dropping the "USS" would make the titles not conform to the WP:NC-SHIP guidelines. Rather than simply Illinois (BB-65), we would have to use American ship Illinois (BB-65) or American battleship USS Illinois (BB-65). I suspect that this was part of the reasoning behind using "USS"or "HMS" for all the ships of the USN/RN in first place. - BilCat (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Im with Palmiera as I understand his position: USS only for ships that were actually USS, redirects for anything else. As for what to do with non-USS USN ships, I have no opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a way has to be settled on for national identity of all national ships (warships, auxiliaries, service craft, coast guards, survey, fishery protection vessels and such) without misuse of the national titles. I would advocate the pattern I used for FS-255 (U.S. Army ship), in part patterned on the "Name (ship)" convention to distinguish ships from the things or people from which they took the name, and the need to distinguish U.S. Army vessels that in most cases had no "title" beyond "U.S. Army" and the number or name and number (The wild misapplication of USAT here is another issue, though without quite the service sensitivity as USS/not USS). My one reservation there, and I think a solution can be found, is that we have NAME (pennant/hull #) in most national ships of all types and brackets have other uses here. I don't know if something like NAME (AA-##) [U.S.N.] might work in general practice or have system consequences. If without a link that works without consequences it might be a solution before or after the name: [U.S.N.] USS NAME (AA-##), [U.S.N.] NAME (AA-##) and so on or just [U.S.] USS NAME (AA-##)? It seems to me the nationality issue should be separate from how the various national naval and other official organizations use titles. In the long term I think it simplifies things and can be made into an extended template fitting most ships rather than unique by nation as: NATIONALITY|TITLE|NAME|NUMBER perhaps. Palmeira (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Switching to something like NATIONALITY|TITLE|NAME|NUMBER would take article naming to a whole new level of unnecessary complexity (to say nothing of failing WP:PRECISION). Additionally, as WP:COMMONNAME indicates, the common usage of a name "is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." As such, I do not see any need for major changes to the ship naming conventions, other than perhaps coming up with something to address the non-USAT ships used by the Army. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Most ship articles already add those elements and my proposal below provides for any to remain blank. In the most strict "precision" terms we would only include a name. Take that to its logical end, using the Apollo program example, and we should only be using the DANFS model for U.S.N. ships. That would, in strictly Navy terms, be correct. I would agree it is overkill here where people, unlike those going to DANFS, may not even know the ship is U.S.N. in the first place and non U.S.N. vessels are included. Non-commissioned ships never had the name "USS anything" beyond perhaps mistaken and poorly informed popular use. The "USS" is a formal title of address as "Honorable" is for certain elected officials or "Mr." and "MS." for a person prefixed to a ship's actual name. It is a formal sign of status, or past status, as a commissioned warship of the United States. Since "USS" isn't actually part of the ship's name adding it at all is a precision issue. Palmeira (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on RFC, as article names are driven firstly by common name and secondly by individual guidelines which are there for consistencty and ease not absolute accuracy - lack of commissioning being a technical point to most readers. On naming though, if necessary I would go with Illinois (BB-65) or Battleship BB-65 as the article name. I could equally make a point that a ship only part built has little history and most its specs and background are already covered by the article on the class as a whole. To that end the content could be folded into the class article and the individual (unbuilt) ship article deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, can you see my comment below? Our conventions aren't very driven by common names; if they were, no article would be named with the style "(country) (ship type) (name) (designation)". :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Never ending discussions

I should point out that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) has a lot of similar conversations on this topic. More recently there were conversations here and here. I also pointed out the need for a solid proposal in order to resolve the issue. Far too often there is a lot of discussion but no resolution because there is no follow through. I'm no longer convinced the standing conventions are as correct as they should be; especially the issue over using prefixes. --Brad (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Users making up their own conventions is certainly not going to help the situation any. However, I think the system being used by Pal may be simpler/better than the current one, and is worth considering in any new proposals. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's go for it and not let this extend further into another of those. I just took a better look at those discussions you referenced. Yes, there is a time period factor as well. The USS doesn't even go back all that far in our young nation and when we get to Europe we can go back centuries. Being a newbie I am not familiar with the RFC process here (large systems yes) but would hope it involves some estimation of the extent of the change and seeks to simplify, minimize "cost" and work toward a global rather than piecemeal solution. Here is my almost top of the head recommendation. Parse the basic ship identification elements needed for a title and keeping disambiguation and redirects as simple as possible. Shoot for a single template model, though national ones might eventually be desirable as standard options. For example: {Nationality | National designator | Name | Pennant/Hull # | Year} with any element a possible blank, nationality perhaps the common current name or abbreviation with room for pre modern state and such. Thus the same template could fit a modern vessel or Vasa (ship), i.e. {Swedish|(blank)|Vasa|(blank)|1627}, {U.S.|USS|Seawolf|SSN-21|(blank)} or {U.S.|USAMP|Major General Wallace F. Randolph|MP-7|1942} as possible examples. Perhaps "(ship)" could be a given in such a template? Palmeira (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that {{ship}} fills most of those needs? Vasa (ship) is easily rendered in wiktext ([[Vasa (ship)|''Vasa'']]), but the others are easy. {Ship|USS|Seawolf|SSN-21} (aka {USS|Seawolf|SSN-21}), for one.

I think that the naming conventions are mostly wonderful until this sticky point. BTW, if we were going with all of the popular names, we wouldn't be using the "(country) (ship type) (name) (designation)" system, now would we? As such, are we certain that names like American ship Illinois (BB-65) and American cruiser Hawaii (CB-3) are really that evil, given that they will at least be more correct?

I think that much more discussion between project members would be prudent before we trouble the community with an RfC. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a large number of French, British and Russian ships of periods that don't have pennant numbers or whatever and I'm quite content with the current naming conventions which use ship type to distinguish between the Russian battleship Borodino and the Russian battlecruiser Borodino with an additional qualifier for year if necessary. I see no need to change the current system as I don't really care if a ship was ever formally given a USS title or not. And I'm certainly indifferent to any ridicule that ex-Navy types might extend our way for not adhering to such technicalities. What we have now works well enough, with a few exceptions, and we need to just leave it alone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I might as well get in this act also and throw in one more concern. Palmeira is certainly correct, that "USS" is applied in cases where it should not be. Wikipedia is operating under two constraints, however: its articles are to be both accurate and accessible. In the public mind, so far as I can read it, any warship owned or operated by the US Navy is a United States ship, and therefore has the designator "USS." That is a simplification at present, and is clearly not proper in many cases. It has the advantage of simplicity, however, and simplicity becomes even more of a virtue when it is extended back into the past. Until the early days of the 20th century, applying the designation "ship" to almost anything that floats would have been incomprehensible, so the prefix that was used was of form "US {vessel type}," where the type could be either the combat classification (frigate, corvette, sloop-of-war, etc.) or the rig (brig, ship, schooner, etc.). Consider as an example the case of USS (sic) Cumberland. When first commissioned, she was a frigate, and she was referred to as US frigate Cumberland. Sometime later she was razeed and reclassified as a sloop-of-war (defining the distinction between a frigate and a sloop-of-war is left as an exercise for the student). Properly, therefore, at the Battle of Hampton Roads she should have been labeled US sloop-of-war Cumberland. You can see where this is leading; the prefix "USS" is anachronistic at best, just plain wrong at worst, but it makes things a great deal easier, particularly for modern readers who do not really know the distinctions among types of vessels.

Of course, the requirement of accuracy remains. The matter of accessibility can be addressed by appropriate redirects, and for my part I am willing to bend my future edits to conform to clearly established policy. (Past edits will have to be examined case by case, and each will have to await its turn.)

The point of this comment is just to be sure that all the facts are on the table before any decisions are made. Personally, I side with Palmeira, but I believe that his position, if adopted, will create a lot of work that others may not consider to be justified.

By the way, does the designator "HMS" have a similar evolutionary history? - PKKloeppel (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if any thing even more convoluted. HMS only appears in the 1780s, prior to then ships were labelled by any number of descriptive appellations usually but not always based on their rig, but potentially their classification as well, or other combinations. 'HM sloop xxx', His Britannic Majesty's frigate xxx', etc. It would be historically more accurate to bend the titles of our articles to refer to a bomb vessel launched in 1690 for example as 'His Britannik Majesties' bomb Lightning', as this was how they were actually referred to by their contemporaries but this would create a terrible mishmash of titles. Depending on which sources were used, you could find several different ways of referring to the same vessel. Far better to remain with our current policy. This argument that some naval academics are chortling into their coffee or rolling their eyes in disgust at how wikipedia is using USS to refer to uncompleted battleships is unconvincing. First of all I can't imagine they care. Second if they did wikipedia is not written only for them. And thirdly, we are by no means obligated to follow their style guides and regulations, no more than other institution can automatically oblige wikipedia's manuals of style to follow their rules, no matter how prestigious and venerable they are. This seems more to be an argument over whether ships that were not commissioned into the US Navy should be titled with the prefix or not. This seems to be a valid point of discussion, let's sort that out and move on. Benea (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's debate whether never-built U.S. Navy ships should receive the "USS" moniker; the other debate should be discussed at another time. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "never commissioned" instead of "never built"? That is the issue. To clarify things, I do not recommend some massive effort here to go back and rapidly correct every case. The ships never commissioned tend to be in certain "commercial" type hulls such as those U.S. Army Engineer Port Repair Ships that I moved to some protest here. Some of those were accepted by the Navy, itself only supervising construction after turn over from Maritime Commission, and turned over to the Army the same day. Most of the others are in various yard and utility craft rarely covered here--and they probably should be covered as a group anyway as few yard craft have notable histories. A move with full redirects using the old USS WHATEVER name as found or next edited instead of some massive effort makes sense. I venture to say that I could target and find many of those rather quickly by using the likely groups and would be willing to work on that a bit, particularly if I continue my interest in working the Army vessels, if we decide to make the correction. Then, take care in any new articles to use the correct usage with a redirect for the name some uninformed member of the public would use. Lastly, on the historic ships there is something of an out. The famous ones dealt with here are most probably all ships that were commissioned even if the USS prefix had not been thought of yet. In the spirit of the honorific I doubt even that Captain would get ruffled using USS for one of our great frigates. An updated, educational note might be in order still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Most popular ship pages

Using the list of popular pages as a guide, listed there are the 500 top visited articles for the month of December. I do not see any ship on that list that would fall into the scope of this discussion which is the debate over USS being used on ships that were never commissioned into the US Navy. I think the statistics point out that the few ships that we have articles on with militarily incorrect naming protocols aren't gathering all that much attention. I think we're giving this issue too much importance when there doesn't seem to be any from the general reading public. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret this discussion, but I get the feeling that it's extremely partial to modern (1800-), and primarily US and British, naval history. As soon as we start moving out in the realm of early modern European vessels in general very little of what has been discussed seems to apply. Without diverting too much of the discussion that belongs on the convention talkpage what exactly do you plan on doing with articles about ships with names like Padre Eterno, Kronan or De Zeven Provincien?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to use a year of launching qualifier as we already do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So what's the point of HMS Antelope (1546)?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The point? You indicate the point above. It is application of a very recent standard, itself sometimes not accurately applied, to all history. In my view it is pandering to ignorance perceived in the general public, a demonstration of less than "encyclopedic" standards for articles or both. Palmeira (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Miramar

The Miramar website has announced that as from 19 January, a US$20 annual subscription will be needed to access the site, apart from a free 7-day trial. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks. I guess that $20 isn't a lot, and I understand why he had to do it ("Sponsorship has now ceased and donations are no longer sought."), but I still don't want to pay it. :/ This is a little cheap, but maybe someone could register and post the registration here so we can all access it and use it as a reference still? I'd be willing to pitch in and/or pay it next year if someone does the groundwork now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this means the source is no longer considered "reliable" if it is not accessible by everyone. --Brad (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still reliable, just not an ideal source. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So in Ed-speak this means the source will be plastered all over the place? --Brad (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no, it just means that if there is another online source that is free, that one should be cited. Actually, double-citing would probably be the best option... Regardless, I believe Miramar remains a reliable source. Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that online sources have to be accessible to everyone. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that {{cite Miramar}} will need altering on the 19th to state that the site is a subscription site? Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. I recommend waiting until the site actually changes to subscription only and then present the issue to the reference desk or whatever they call it. --Brad (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The website is now subscription only. The template will need to be altered to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you fill in the template documentation so we can see the options and layout. --Brad (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bellhalla (talk · contribs) created the template. These type of templates are beyond my editing skills.

We now have a problem with editors removing Miramar as a source and replacing it with a blog source (see here). While Miramar is no longer free, it is still a RS. Ships Nostalgia, while giving useful data to search with, is not a RS. English language sources are prefereable to non-English ones. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to leave Bellhalla a message re the template, but he's not edited since 17 Dec. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, we have a problem. The links simply don't work anymore—they redirect to the home page unless you are logged in. I'm not sure what should be done here. Should the urls just be removed and the titles altered to remove the "Search results for" part? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've enacted a temporary fix while we sort this out [1] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognized content bot

A new bot was just put into service that locates and lists a project's "recognized content" by generating a list of FA's and GA's etc. I set up a preliminary page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Showcase. The bot is very tunable and we could separate content to its own page or wherever we feel it's best to locate it. This eliminates the task of having to manually update the data on our own and should answer some of the questions that were raised about ITN Articles above here.

There are some limitations in that the bot will only list articles that have our project tag on the talk page. This presents a problem with featured pictures as most of those are at commons which does not get project tags from the various wikis. --Brad (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to tag the images, you can also have a hybrid version, where the bot picks up the DYK and so on, and keep pictures done manually. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting our A-Class articles. That point was the reason why MILHIST probably will not utilize this bot, it doesn't recognize it. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet. Talk to User:JLaTondre about that. I'm pretty sure he'll implement it if you ask him nicely. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did on the bot request page, and he said that unless it was category based it would not be possible with the bot. The issue is that MILHIST and ships cross-lists their ACRs and MILHIST has recently begun cross-listing with the Aviation project as well, meaning that a SHIPS A-class article may have had a MILHIST ACR but be an A-class article for both projects. See how the bot wouldn't be able to work? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread was to gather thoughts and possible improvements we would like to see. As you say we can take the issues to the bot owner later on. In the meantime let's not just dismiss and stomp on the overall idea. --Brad (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the Ship project tag it's A-class articles with |class=A? If so, that should be placing the talk pages of articles in a category. It may require a different behaviour than the others, but it shouldn't be all that hard to modify. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Category:A-Class military history articles and Category:A-Class Ships articles —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JLaTondre says that A-class is now supported. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quick! :-) I edited conflicted in leaving my own message. As project's usually have their own category for A-Class articles, I added a new content type parameter that allows you to specify a category. See the template for how to use. If there are any questions or issues with the results, let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the parameter. Hopefully it's set correctly. --Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was set correctly & I ran the bot so the page has been updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for support with In the News articles and this will be added. Also support for FA's that have made a main page appearance along with the date of appearance is being worked on. --Brad (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured and good topics will soon be added. Starting to be a lot more helpful now. --Brad (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Topic nomination for Gorgon class monitors

All interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gorgon class monitor/archive1 as to its suitability as a good topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic moment

Knock Nevis, currently the world's largest ship period, is being scrapped. I just learned about it not more than an hour ago. I took the liberty of adding some information to the article, just what I could find, for a shot at a spot on the in the news section on the main page. As this is still fair recent news I am having trouble finding information through my usual channels, so I left this here to both inform everyone of the development and to see if anyone can gather more information on the event. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A strange and curious bias

The ship infoboxes allow a few spelling choices, with double parameter listings

Ship honors=

Ship honours=

Ship draught=

Ship draft=

Ship armor=

Ship armour=

Can anybody tell me why I'm finding hundreds of American ships where the infoboxes use "armour" and "draught" and "honours", yet for the British ships it seems that I can find several using "armor" in the text but not in the infoboxes, where it is "armour".

Am I not looking right? Maybe it's my own bias, but I doubt it. I think there is a real difference in the frequency of misuse of the infoboxes. Does anybody have an explanation why that happens? Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably some editors who aren't used to US spelling conventions. It's quite possible that the infoboxes were copied from non-US ship articels, and that the ZUS fileds had already been removed, thus the editor didn't realize there was a choice. However, it would be quite a job to check the history of several hundred articles to see if these were changed from trhe US conventions, and probably not worth the effort, unless this was all done by a single user. - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that all of them I have done so far have included both spellings for at least one of the parameters on the edit page; only a few have had one spelling removed for one or two of those parameters, so that explanation is possible for a few, but most of them were like USS Sandoval (1895) is now, or like this difference where you can see that the American spellings were already there in that article's infobox before I moved the info to the proper parameter and deleted the one spelt wrong. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe those are the result of an automated program that was used to convert several thousand obsolete infoboxes over to the new one. It was only after being finished that I realized he had used Commonwealth words on US ships. Another mistake made was to the ships in active service. The "Status" line was moved to "Fate". So we ended up with - Fate: Active in service - on many articles as well. Of course the problem gets compounded when people copy boxes or use a box that is in error as an example. --Brad (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternate spellings are in accordance with WP:ENGVAR to enable British or US spelling in infobox and article without forcing one or the other in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When a bot does something like that, I'd say that the bot should do the fix-up work too. Note in particular that in accordance withWP:ENGVAR, the use of American English is not limited to U.S. ships. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) now open

The peer review for HMAS Sydney (R17) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help please...

I am concerned by some recent edits I noticed to German cruiser Lützow (Hipper class) by a user Jo0doe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently came off of a one year block and who predominately uses online machine-translation of foreign sources for his edits. The edits in question have removed existing references (in English) and replaced them with references in what I assume is Russian. I can tell immediately that this was put through an online translator because the grammer is extremely poor and not of the professional quality that we strive for. I am especially concerned by the discussion on the user's talk page where he doesn't get the message about not copy-pasting from online translations. Could some others preferably in the United Kingdom or anywhere else where it is daylight please help deal with this since it is past 3 AM where I am? -MBK₀₀₄ 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone for a revert to an earlier version - as the easiest thing to reverse as necessary. There appears to be some info added but its such a grammatical mess. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose peer review

Mary Rose is up for peer review. Comments and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Imperial Japanese Navy

I have nominated Imperial Japanese Navy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK₀₀₄ 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with access to JSTOR?

If so I could use a look up on Voyage of the Frigate Congress, 1823. I'm not exactly sure how JSTOR works; don't know if an entire downloadable copy is available. --Brad (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have JSTOR access, and can read the article, though the terms of content redistribution are pretty strict. Is there something specific you wanted to know? I'd be happy to provide citations and details if so. Benea (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had someone else come forward with assistance. We'll see how that goes. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh. What a hoot that article is. This was a mission that DANFS described as During the second half of 1823, she carried the United States Ministers to Spain and the Argentine Republic but failed to mention the lengths that Biddle had to go through to please a pampered politician and his broken coffee mill and butter churn. That doesn't even cover the complete deck remodeling done to the ship to accommodate Rodney and his 11 children. Anyhow, this will be a nice little snicker to add into the article :) --Brad (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well of course it doesn't. A government publication can't ridicule a foreign dignitary—alive or dead—for fear of starting a diplomatic row. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which only reinforces my dislike of using DANFS as a main source in articles. If you can read the article please do. I was totally laughing when Biddle described how one of Rodney's old horse saddles got wet and then smelled so bad they had to run it up the mast to get the smell away from them. --Brad (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha that's great. I actually can't read it. For some reason, even my university access doesn't allow me to read it... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the usage policy stated on the document, it's only to be used for personal non-commercial use. I'm interpreting "personal use" as not using it on a public site such as WP. I am wrong in reading it this way? --Brad (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Germany is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Determiners for Ship Names

I would like to propose a standard usage in Wikipedia for all ships' names: that as inanimate objects, and according to traditional English usage, ships' names should be proceeded by a determiner whenever they occur. "The Queen Mary," "The Titanic," "The Bremen," etc. It has been an unfortunate occurrence since Jame's Cameron's "Titanic" that somehow we have begun addressing ships as thinking beings. "Normandie boasts... " "France held...." This recent habit is ridiculous if you think about it. Take a discussion of any inanimate object, say a freeway. Would you ever write: "I-10 is a pleasure to drive. I-10 is made of concrete. Built in 1970, I-10 runs directly to Burbank. I-10 requires 10 million a year in maintenance." Never. Omitting the determiner (or using it only once at the beginning of the article) simply adds a pompous tone to the text, and causes editorial confusion, as names now appear in Wikipedia articles both with and without articles in the same paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doesitbetter (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, the editor wants us to change Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Referring_to_ships and then implement this change across every ship article on wikipedia. They have been edit warring on this issue for a day before eventually deciding to discuss this instead of being blocked for disruptive editing on SS Normandie. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am against this because it is a slippery slope to having to rehash the she/it debate all over again. The guidelines were clearly written that way for a reason and while each article needs to not change its style internally, each is currently accepted. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. I might also point out that vehicles are often referred to as if they were entities rather than objects, that's why they are given names in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ships are not inanimate objects, they move. Centuries of tradition has referred to ships (as with all machines) in the feminine form in the English speaking world. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed most recently (at least that I am aware of) here. Suffice it to say, the MoS allows both ways, but if one style has been chosen, it shouldn't be altered (a la WP:ENGVAR). As a side note, you certainly wouldn't write the I-10 runs..., you most certainly would drop the definite article from that sentence. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the UK you would write "the M52 runs from x to y", but in the sense that its a contraction of "the route of the M52 runs from...." That said, the current guideline works and does not need changing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I write either "North Carolina was" or "The battleship North Carolina was ..."; that's a compromise between the style guideline for ships and AP Stylebook, which says on the one hand that Jane's Fighting Ships is the reference of choice for military ships, but OTOH prefers "it" over "she" and prefers definite articles ("the Queen Elizabeth 2" is their example). - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, and I do stress that it is just my opinion, using the definite article before a ship's name is just wrong, for the simple reason that it is a name, and not a thing. Ie, you wouldn't say 'the Fred opened the door,' so by extension 'the Victory fired her guns' doesn't work for me. 'The ship fired her guns' is obviously perfectly fine, in exactly the same way as 'the man opened the door' is. That has always been my take on the issue. Martocticvs (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I hold the same opinion as Martocticvs. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I hold Ed's position on this matter and disagree with the proposed change. To me, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about for other ships, but in regards to Australian warships, I've been told by sailors that it is incorrect to use "the" (as in "the Sydney". The reasoning runs along the lines of: calling the ship Sydney is a convenient shortening of her name (HMAS Sydney) and HMAS is an acronym for "Her Majesty's Australian Ship". "The Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sydney" breaks grammar. "The frigate Sydney..." is alright, because "the" is associated with frigate in that phrase.

It should also be noted that calling a ship by its/her name without using "the" in front has been around for a long time, and was common usage in the days before the film Titanic. -- saberwyn 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

USAT R. E. Callan

The rundown on this ship indicates that ir was not active in December 1946. However, as a Private in the US Army I'm sure that I boarded her on 11 December 1946 In New York (I think a pier in Brooklyn) enroute to Italy. We stopped for two or three days in Reykavik, Iceland to off load cargo and some Air Force personnel who would be stationed there. We were not allowed ashore because we were told that the Icelandic people were very susceptible to diseases such as the common cold, chicken pox, etc. We docked in Leghorn (Livorno) Italy on 22 December 1946 and most of us were then assigned to the 88th Infantry Division for duty along the Yugoslavian border. Rodney Hoots, Arlington, Virginia 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)