Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Ships Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcuts

Archives

/Assessment

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Edward M. Cotter (fireboat)

I've done some major work to the content and images of this article and would like to get a review and suggestions for further expansion/improvements. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rated the article as a B-class as it's nicely done. If you want a formal peer review you can request one @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review. A bit more polishing and it should go GA. --Brad (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've worked on it some more and nominated it for a Good Article review. Shinerunner (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a review for Good Article nomination and I've begun making the suggested changes. If anyone would like to review/contribute, it would be appreciated. Shinerunner (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has passed and is now listed as a Good Article! Shinerunner (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Class review for SMS Von der Tann now open

Hi all, the A-Class review for SMS Von der Tann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted on 20 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Class review for SS Panaman now open

The A-Class review for SS Panaman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted on 22 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Class review for SS Iowan now open

The A-Class review for SS Iowan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The A-Class review for SS Iowan is still open and could benefit from additional reviewers. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review closed as promoted. Thanks to all the reviewers who took the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) now open

The A-Class review for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted on 25 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"laid down"

If an article says a ship was "laid down" on a specific day, what specifically happened on that day?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a wooden ship, it means the day the first piece of the keel was laid down on the blocks, and for a steel/iron ship I believe it denotes the day the first piece of steel/iron was cut. Martocticvs (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least on all steel-built passenger ships whose construction I've followed, the date means the day the first section of the keel was laid in the dry-dock, just as it does with wooden ships. There might be some variations about this of course, leading to pleanty of confusion... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually on a slipway, rather than in a dry-dock? David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge very few to no ships have been constructed on a traditional slipway during the past 20-30 years. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far. For instance, look at these pics: http://www.nassco.com/usn_dac/take3_gallery.html. Also, that shipyard at least makes a distinction between the start of construction — when the first piece of metal is cut, and the keel-laying — when the first pieces are assembled on the building ways, several months later. See http://www.nassco.com/usn_dac/take5_gallery.html for pictures from both ceremonies.

—WWoods (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said "to the best of my knowledge", which is at best patchy and based on a handful of European shipyards. ^_~ But returning to the proper point at hand, "laid down" as a field name to me sounds like when the keel is laid, be it in drydock or slipway, and not the actual beginning of construction (which can be very difficult to hunt down). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Category:Keel laying has a couple images of some keel laying ceremonies. I've seen some first weld/first cut images, but I can't find them right now. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to The Times archive?

Does anyone have free access to The Times archive? It recently switched to a pay site after a long (and wonderful) free preview period. I'm interested in two articles that mention the ship SS Empire Simba which was scuttled off the UK in ~~August~~ September 1945 with chemical weapons aboard. Searching for "Empire Simba" (in quotes) at the archive brings up two articles: one from 7 September 1945, and one from 7 September 1970 (which seems to be in a "25 years ago today" type feature). I'm interested in details of Empire Simba's cargo, if available, like types of weapons, quantity, chemicals, etc. Also, were there others scuttled under similar circumstances? If the articles are short, an e-mailed screenshot would be fantastic, otherwise a summary (plus page number!) will be more than sufficient. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do and can email you both. Can you email me with your email address please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was fast. E-mail sent. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And replied to :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing some for me to fill out USS Constitution ? If The Times goes back to 1780 then likely there could be a lot of articles to look up. I could use some opposing POV's from the other side of the pond. --Brad (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class review for MS West Honaker now open

The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is still open and could benefit from additional reviewers. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessment chart not updating ?

Anyone have a clue as to why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Current_status is not updating while the scale on our main project page is? --Brad (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fine now. Maybe it was fixed with PFM. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy ship articles request

USS Constitution needs red link fill-ins for quite a few Royal Navy ships. Unlike the convenience of DANFS, I've not a clue as to where information on the ships can be obtained easily. The following ships need articles:

In all cases I've tried to pinpoint the (year) of the ship by using the disambig pages when they exist. Now that I've listed them all, this seems almost overwhelming :) --Brad (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Levant (1813), HMS Bonne Citoyenne (1796), HMS Junon (1809), HMS Pictou (1813). The Santa Margaretta is perhaps HMS Santa Margarita (1779), a 38-gun fifth rate? No HMS Queen Victoria has ever served with the Royal Navy though, are you sure she was a commissioned warship? Working up articles shouldn't be a problem, but given the length of the list, may take a while! Benea (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source for the Queen Vicky says "HMS Queen Victoria, a ketch," and a Captain Parker supposedly was in command of the Santa Margaretta though it would seem to me that Santa Margarita is more likely the name. No hurry on the articles; just that they need to be sometime in the near future. --Brad (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Santa Margarita (an ex-Spanish prize) and Captain George Parker is your man. Still nothing on HMS Queen Victoria, but I've come across cases on DANFS where they've slipped up on similar things, and assigned the prefixes to non-commissioned ships, or got the name wrong somehow. Or is it in another source? Benea (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source for the names is: Martin, Tyrone G. (1980). A Most Fortunate Ship: A Narrative History of "Old Ironsides". The Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 0-87106-033-7. May I have your source on the Santa Margarita? I guess I'm going to have to add another footnote to the article for clarification. I dunno what to do about Queen Victoria other than add another footnote or remove the line completely. --Brad (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy (Template:Colledge has the details), p. 306 and Rif Winfield, British Warships of the Age of Sail 1714–1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates, pub Seaforth, 2007, ISBN 1-86176-295-X p. 213 for the Santa Margarite. But neither Colledge, nor Lyon and Winfield's The Sail and Steam Navy List has any mention of a Queen Victoria. If she did hit a ship named Queen Victoria, it seems that she wasn't a naval one. Maybe a merchant, or other civilian craft that an overzealous editor has slapped an 'HMS' in front of? Maybe just quietly omitting the prefix is the way to go? Benea (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An 1800 list of ships I have handy lists Santa Margarita (36), captained by G. Parker, just to drop in another corroborative detail. As for the Queen Victoria, I've searched the archives of the Times and whilst I can find an article from November 1841 mentioning the Constitution and Potomac at Rio, there's no mention of any collision nor of any ship by that name. There were a few merchantmen or East Indiamen by that name, but they don't seem to have been anywhere near Brazil.

Digging further, there's an entry for June 29th 1841 saying that the Princess Victoria, from Liverpool, was reported arrived in Rio - so presumably a couple of months prior to that date. (There was definitely a Princess Victoria on the Calcutta-Cape Town-London run at the time, but this last one won't be her) Shimgray | talk | 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin is the only source I have that even mentions these two ships. Presumably he was referencing the logs of Constitution therefore I could see where misspellings or wording could have been the case. The Queen Victoria collision took place in late August 1841 and I would bet that she was Princess Victoria but was she a merchantmen ship? --Brad (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever she was, she wasn't a warship! I'd place good money on her being a British merchantman, though she could well have been Queen Victoria - the Times wouldn't mention anything other than a major ship, so there'd certainly be others not listed. I'd suggest dropping the HMS and just saying "...collided with the Queen Victoria", or something. Shimgray | talk | 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Boat building article, specifically Image:Boatconstruction.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I threw this one on there in its place: Image:Schappledore3.jpg. The article could use more images, though, so the picture-adding needn't end there. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Komagata Maru v. Komagata Maru

This article was created recently as the ship article for Komagata Maru incident, which I just re-titled from Komagata Maru as that's what that article is about. I'm not certain about ship designations, but if I'm not mistaken the "SS" and "Maru" are mutually redundant; "Maru" is the Japanese equivalent of SS, HMS, MV etc - isn't that the case? Didn't want to make the change - "SS" is a common addition to shipnames that shouldn't get it; as I understand it it's primarily a US designation though it did show up on CPR shipanmes (e.g. SS Abyssinia.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since "SS" refers to a steamship, if Komagata Maru was steam powered it's not wrong, but I don't know if that makes it right, either. Having recently worked on a different Maru article myself, I'd like to know what the general opinion is. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Japanese ship naming conventions. --Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting raed...but doesn't quite answer the question, which is whether or not Japanese ships are ever referred to with "SS" (esp. if they've already got "Maru"). As far as SS re steamships goes, that's true but it "feels" like an American desigantion: in Canada a civilian freighter (seteam or othwrise() is "MV" (Merchant Vessel" unless it's ever carried the mail 9inwhich case it's RMS). American-registered ships in Canadian rivers/waters were still referrrd to as "SS" however, and in the vernacular a lot of "MV" and "RMS" designated vessels were called the SS-this-or-that. The colloquial convention is one thing, actual proper usage is another, hence my question about the redundancy of SS and Maru.Skookum1 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MV stands (conventionally at least) for motor vessel. These prefixes are indicators of propulsion, rather than type. Only ships engaged by the Royal Mail to carry the mail are entitled to the prefix RMS, and only when they're carrying it. If they are not, the prefix reverts to MS (motor ship), MV (motor vessel), SS (steam ship), etc. There are a wide range of other prefixes about as well, PS (paddle steamer) TSS (twin screw ship) etc. However how much of this is understood by the layman is debatable,but in the English language, referring to a steam powered ship as SS xxx, whatever the language the name is in, or the flag she is carrying, is technically accurate. Benea (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From how I read that, Maru is not the equivalent of a ship type prefix, and can easily be applied to non steam/motor etc vessels. Civilian designations are a mixed bag, and can be applied or not when referring to a ship, pretty much on a whim. But as long as 'SS' isn't applied to Motor Vessels, and vice versa, I don't think there's any problem with it, and it can be a handy indicator in the title that this is a ship that's being dealt with. And it's not a specific US designation, but is found throughout the English speaking world. I don't see a problem in applying it to foreign named vessels, as prefixes like that were and are used to indicate propulsion types and since this is the English wikipedia, we are probably justified in using the English designator. Benea (talk)

OK, I've been under the impression taht the standard British empire usage was "MV" (thinking it meant Merchant Vessel, which aparently it doesn't). A lot of the old Fraser steamboats are often mentioend without any "SS" or "MV" in reference to them, no matter where they were from (most were American from the Columbia or Sacremento Rivers). In the case of the Komagata Maru, there are a lot of historical sources....maybe the resolution here is how it was most commonly referred to - if "SS Komagata Maru" turns up most often, fine....it just seems a bit overboiled or vevr-elaborate; looks unfamiliar but then the modern convention in BC is to refer to Japanese shipnames with Maru only, or that's waht seems to be; I don't recall reading material on the Komagata Maru where ""SS Komagata Maru" occurs, but I've mostly read only journalistic rehashes where maybe the editors interest is in brevity/minimizing charadcters??Skookum1 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent for slightly less confusion) MV can stand for both "motor vessel" as well as "merchant vessel" - there seems to be two schools for this. But as it can refer to both, IMHO it should not be used for steamships to avoid confusion. There also seems to be regional variances on MV vs. MS—MV seems to be widely-used in (British) English-speaking countries, but I've never seen it used for example in Finnish or the Scandinavian languages. Some companies (for instance DFDS and Tallink) use MV in english-language material but MS in other languages.

Also, I was under the impression that "TSS" stands for "turbine steamship", not "twin screw ship"? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it used as twin screw ship, which I suppose only goes to prove the point that these civilian prefixes are widely interchangeable on more or less an editorial whim. SS for steamships used to be a widely accepted convention, but now there are few of them left. Most modern vessels use motors so MS and MV are technically applicable. In some areas the type of prefix has been considerably stressed (eg. MS Queen Victoria), but we've never really made any attempts to enforce the use of particular civilian prefixes. I'd stick with our guidelines on this, if there are a majority of sources that demonstrate the ship is best known with or without a particular prefix, then follow that. We can deal with individual queries on a case by case basis. But going back to User:Skookum1's original query, as far as I can tell the Japanese use of the Maru suffix does not have anything to do with the use of prefixes, and does not seem to preclude using one. Whether it's technically correct to use one on a Japanese or non-English named ship, is another matter. Benea (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Maru not mean something along the lines of 'the ship named...', hence Komagata Maru is really just 'the ship named Komagata'? I don't speak Japanese but I'm sure I read that somewhere... Martocticvs (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Japanese ship naming conventions, it means 'circle', and they have any number of possible explanations as to why. The real reason is lost to the mists of time, but they've been using it since at least the 16th century, so it doesn't have any connection to the modern use of SS, MV, etc, which is what I think Skookum1 was initially wondering. Benea (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, the user who created the article has apparently decided that SS Komagata Maru was a mistake, and has copy and pasted the article over the previous redirect, Komagata Maru. The problem is that we now have two more or less identical articles. I reverted this once, pending the outcome of this discussion, but he's redone it. Perhaps an admin could delete the current Komagata Maru article to clear the way for the SS Komagata Maru to be properly moved to that title, before the situation requires a merge? Benea (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for SMS Von der Tann now open

The FAC for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Von der Tann was promoted to featured article status on 7 October. Congratulations to Parsecboy and others who worked on the article! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-boats in italics?, again

In response to the discussion in Archive 10 (section 79) on putting U boat designations in italics [1]
I’ve had a look at about a dozen books from the library for this;

7 use italics (U-47)
5 don’t (U-47)
No-one uses U- 47
One (Kemp) uses non-italic for headings (U-47) but italics in the text (U-47), echoing the suggestion for pages here.

I hope that is of use. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like we should use italics when writing the name of a U-boat in the U-nn style. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy titles

Even though it's only peripherally related to WP:SHIPS, some editors may find the discussion of naming styles for World War II convoy articles of interest. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Template:WikiProject Ships

There have been some updates made to Template:WikiProject Ships today. Some improvements that had been discussed on the template's talk page should now be functioning.

When the template is placed on a talk page in the Category, Image, or Template namespaces, it should auto-assess to the proper class.
Even though B-Class checklist parameter names could be abbreviated in the template before (b1, B1, B-1, b-1 instead of having to type B-Class-1, for example), the template will now assess as the proper class regardless of the parameter style. (Previously, it would only return a B-Class if the parameters were spelled out in full, B-Class-1=yes, etc.)
On a related note, when B-Class-3, B-Class-4, and B-Class-5 are set to "yes", the template will assess as C-Class regardless of whether B-Class-1 and B-Class-2 are set to "yes", "no" or undefined, but if all five are "yes", it will, of course, assess as B-Class.
When using either the nested or small parameters, the template will now properly accept variations on "yes", like "y", "Y", etc.

— Bellhalla (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that fixed when so many others had failed. --Brad (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline/concensus needed for importance assessment on ship operators?

First off, apologies if this has already been discussed—I could no find anything related to this topic by a quick search.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment has a clear guideline on how to assess articles on ship types, ship classes, individual ships, and ships that were never completed. However, it does not have a guideline on how to assess ship operators (navies and shipping companies). At the moment the assessment of such articles range between low and high, so a common guideline for this would be highly needed. If a concensus for such has been reached before then the rest of my post can be more-or-less ignored and theinformation should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment. But if not, I'd like to use this chance to start a discussion on the topic:

In my opinion ship operators should be rated higher than individual ships, following this rationale from the Assessment page: "[the assessment is an] attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". At least in the case of commercial ships, a person is far more likely to be looking for information on a shipping company (say Carnival Cruise Line) than any of their individual ships. A person actually interested in the individual ships (such as most of us) might look up an individual ship, but a casual visitor looking for information, for instance looking up on different cruise options (don't snicker, I've used wiki for this), is far more likely to look up the company page. Additionally an article on a navy or shipping company covers several ships (often several ship classes)—by the logic that an article on a ship class is more important than one on an individual ship, an article on a ship operator should also be more important than an article on an individual ship.

Thoughts? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed somewhere in the past though I can't find the thread just now. The thoughts were that wp:ships is a project that concentrates on individual ships and ship classes. An article about a cruise line is not exactly an article about a ship or class of ship but it is ship related. Same thing with a US Navy article or something similar. Ship related articles were given the Low importance rating. There are other wikiprojects an article about a cruise line company may fall under. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally my thinking as well; I typically give ship-related articles (i.e., ferry companies, shipyards, navies, etc.) low-importance ratings, as they would be more important to projects like WP:MARITIME, Maritime Trades, or the like. I would agree that our primary focus should be on individual ships and ship classes. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Carnival Cruise Line would be a high-importance Maritime Trades article, while a topic like Royal Australian Navy would likely be a high-importance WP:MARITIME article. Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised to see Carnival Cruise Line with a WP:SHIPS tag on it, but I would be surprised to see Royal Australian Navy with a WP:SHIPS tag. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I had quite forgotten about the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades as a project covering articles on shipping companies. I withdraw my original proposal, then. Since we're in agreement, I presume no-one would mind if I edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment to include a note that shipping companies (an comparable articles not directly dealing with ships) should should be rated low? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the page. There are a lot of guidelines that are out of date etc. --Brad (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warship statistics: tonnage and/or number

Does anybody have good statistics or a good reference for the current number of maval vessels worldwide? These numbers, from the ship article, look like they could have come from Janes Fighting Ships, but I'm having a bear of a time trying to find a reference for them.

In 2002, there were 1,240 warships operating in the world, not counting small vessels such as patrol boats. The United States accounted for 3 million tons worth of these vessels, Russia 1.35 million tons, the United Kingdom 504,660 tons and China 402,830 tons.

By comparison, page 16 of this document gives some similar-ish numbers for 2004/2005.

Thanks,Haus^Talk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-boat designations (notification)

I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed here and here), viz:

"Unterseeboot..." effectively loses the page,
Unterseeboot is a foreign term (the English word is "submarine", or "U-Boat"),
Other submarine pages use, for example “Italian submarine...” or "French Submarine...",
And other german warships use the same format, eg “German battleship…”.

The discussion is HERE. (Posted also at WT:MILHIST as suggested). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article feed

I want to know if I'm the only one having a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. The page is showing the last article as being from Sept 30 but if you go to User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog the article listing there seems to be updating daily as the new article page should be. I've dumped the cache on my browser but it hasn't made any difference. --Brad (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lastest I'm seeing is from 05:53, 2 October. Refreshing the cache hasn't worked for me either. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the top one is "started at 08:05, 4 October 2008", but there is an odd /noinclude html code in the first line of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I'm updated to that point as well, with the same /noinclude bit. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm showing all is updated now too. Since I'm on the page everyday I've noticed that four days pass before the page updates. If you could look again on Monday or Tuesday we can compare again. --Brad (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably my fault that it worked. It might be a combination of browser cache and server cache. I saw the page as updated, but I had never viewed it before, so it wasn't in my cache. After I posted here, I went back and did a null edit to see if the noinclude syntax stayed in there, then you two posted that it was fixed. It was probably the null edit that updated the page date/time stamp or something to that effect. A few minutes ago, I put an opening noinclude into the bot's page and it didn't update the other page until I did another null edit. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that did the trick but that strange noinclude tag has been there ever since I can remember. The bot owner never answered me as to what might be wrong. I notice that some pages on WP have a purge option; any idea on how that is arranged? --Brad (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Purge, I added a {{purge}} to it. I think the null edit does the same thing. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We'll see what happens from here. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion

An article within the scope of the project, Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may wish to comment at the discussion here. Benea (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is a sister article, Japanese minelayer Okinoshima, under discussion here. Benea (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both were snowball "keep"s. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Ships by place of construction

The category Ships by place of construction has been nominated for deletion. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ship index/Disambiguation

A new change to the software (I'm assuming) means that every time a disambiguation page is opened for editing, a little banner appears at the top reminding you of the guidelines for these sorts of pages. The trouble is, it's appearing on our ship index pages, such as HMS Agamemnon. When these are opened, they sternly declare 'This is not an article; it is a disambiguation page.' Which is unfortunately completely untrue. There are already issues with well-intentioned editors 'cleaning up' these set index pages along the much stricter disambiguation page guidelines, and I worry that this is going to add to the problem. Can anything be done, I wonder, to stop these banners appearing on pages tagged with Template:shipindex? Benea (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I popped a note up about this at the Village pump (technical). Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from {{Disambig editintro}}, apparently a project of WP:DAB. I've posed the question in a discussion there. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity asked me to take a look at this.

No worries. I know several easy ways to fix that. I just have to think and test a little which way is the best. I have put all my other work aside since this seems urgent. I think we can have this fully fixed within some hours. :))

I suggest that further discussion on this is done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Disambig editintro - working, which Bellhalla linked to above. I will publish the solution I recommend at that page, once I have figured out which one is the best.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IM backANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and you were expecting a parade or what? --Brad (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Names

I found these articles about crane ships that are part of the United States Navy ready reserve. Should the prefix USNS or USS be used instead of SS? Shinerunner (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MSC uses SS for all four. Kablammo (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to old issues of the journal Mariner's Mirror?

- either the archive issued on CD a few years ago or the publication itself in a reference library.

I'm looking for a copy of an article printed in the 1930s.

Thanks. --Petecarney (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, worldcat.org can show you what libraries nearest you have copies at this link. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]