Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 10

message: I am employed by Porter Novelli, a global public relations network. 
My client CSIS does not currently have an entry in Wikipedia. We feel that one would be appropriate, as it is made up of 24 major container shipping lines and exists to raise awareness about the industry.
Please could somebody review the short article that is on my talk page and if it is appropriate, create an entry.
Many Thanks
RachelRingstead (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rachel, you may want to cross post your request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maritime Trades. That project is more specific to shipping companies while this project is more specific to individual ships. If you had some online references to add to the article it would help ease things along so that editors can verify the information. --Brad (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for article creation 

message: It is proposed that the current image in the surrender of japan section on the page USS Missouri (BB-63) be exchanged for a new image. All interested editers are invited to comment at Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)#Commodore Perry's flag. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Image Exchange 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Wandalstouring (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reposted from Milhist talk. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{SS|Kroonland}} now open 

message: Could someone in the know please have a look at the question at Talk:USS Chicago (CA-29). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone look please 

message: The peer review for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[SMS Von der Tann]] now open 

message: Been working on the American President Lines article, and most of the articles Robert Dollar (i.e. Dollar Lines) and Pacific Mail Steamship Company is now covered in that. Those two articles aren't exactly amazing examples of articles right now - my two ideas currently are either to merge these into the APL article as I continue to expand (they have a bit of info my sources haven't mentioned, need to check for sources for some of that stuff) or to split up my writing into these two articles (it's already done so within the APL article) and have the APL article focus purely on APL since its formation (I've yet to write that up). Ideas on this, anyone? Danny252 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all three articles have enough information to stay as they are now. Before you get much further into the APL article you're going to have to find more third party reliable sources. I was going to give the article a B-Class rating but I noticed that too many of your references are from the company website. --Brad (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get on that one sometime today, the other articles list a few possible sources Danny252 (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dollar Line and Pacific Mail Steamship Co 

message: The peer review for  is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for {{sclass|Barbarossa|ocean liner|1}} now open 

message: This article is now at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baltimore Steam Packet Company. Thanks also to Bellhalla for the GA review and helping with various tweaks for FAC. JGHowes talk -  19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: promoted to FA today. JGHowes talk -  20:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC - [[Baltimore Steam Packet Company]] 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: to all members of this project assessing articles, please refer to this discussion. There is a rough consensus not to use C-class and that the MILHIST B-class criteria apply to this project as well. -MBK004 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: An article within the scope of this project, Princess Kaguya (ship), is being considered for deletion.  Editors from the project may wish to comment here. Benea (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion 

message: I noticed a few airships have the Ship project banner on their Talk pages. At first I thought this was an oversight (someone or a bot seeing "ship" in the title maybe), so I may have removed banners from one or two airship articles. Now I am not so sure.
The few US Naval aircraft I looked at were in WikiProject Aviation only. It probably does not matter if an article gets more banners (more the merrier I say), but I would not like to either wrongly include articles or wrongly exclude articles.
To save fruitless work removing banners, would it be Ok just leaving any Ship banners already placed? Alternatively, if this project really does want to watch over Naval airships, then shall I add a banner when I go through the various airship articles?
Meanwhile here are some airship-related articles with Ship banners:
* Talk:Spy basket
* Talk:USS Shenandoah (ZR-1)
* Talk:USS Los Angeles (ZR-3)
* Talk:USS Akron (ZRS-4)
* Talk:USS Macon (ZRS-5)
* Talk:Coastal class blimp
* Talk:C-Star class blimp
-84user (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is an archived discussion where the project decided that airships operated by a nation's navy are indeed a part of our scope, but with a low importance assessment. -MBK004 21:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Not a problem, I've already added the tag back. I'd think we just stick to the airships and blimps, but that's just me. -MBK004 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My presumption is that any ship (regardless of being water or air based) commissioned into service for a national navy would be covered by the scope of this project.  However blimps not falling into this rather narrow criteria would probably only be tagged for  and .  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does WikiProject Ships also cover Naval aircraft? 

message: This article was recently moved. I don't necessarily have a problem with renaming/moving it, but it was done with no apparent discussion by somebody who doesn't seem to have a user page. Not a good way to do it, IMHO. Is there a reason for the move? Lou Sander (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They certainly enjoy moving pages apparently without discussion or fixing double redirects. Over 150 moves in a month, I don't think I've moved that many pages in 2.5+ years. I would think they are leaving a big mess for someone else to clean up. I don't see a problem with the original name of United States Sixth Fleet or any of they other names they saw fit to change. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the list of moved pages. I see that all of 'em have a revert button. Should it be pushed for some of 'em? Lou Sander (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted about a hundred consensus-less page moves made by this editor.  Thanks for the heads-up on this issue, and please let me know if I missed any or did not get them moved to the correct location (a few had been moved 3 - 5 times in the past 48 hours, so the page histories are somewhat convoluted).  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sixth Fleet (United States Navy)]] 

message: I've found some Coast Guard articles that likely should be renamed to a class. Some of them are describing two or more classes per article:
*USCG Coastal Patrol Boat
*USCG Inland Buoy Tender
*USCG Maritime Security Cutter, Large
*USCG Medium Endurance Cutter
*USCG Patrol Boat
*USCG Seagoing Buoy Tender
*USCG Utility Boat
*USCG transportable port security boat
Anyhow, looking for some input on what to do with these. They're a bit confusing at present. --Brad (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Coast Guard class articles 

message: Currently, 2025 articles assigned to this project, or 10.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot has been enabled @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Cleanup listing and is a good comprehensive listing. 10% of our articles are tagged for some sort of maintenance. --Brad (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: This could be a good way to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tasks as that page has been a manually maintained page. It would be nice to have as a reference anyway. --Brad (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot has been enabled @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Cleanup listing and is a good comprehensive listing. 10% of our articles are tagged for some sort of maintenance. --Brad (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we use this?

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{USS|Princess Matoika|ID-2290}} now open 

message: The FA review  is now open here. --Brad (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC now open

message: A proposal to alter Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) to mandate titling all ship articles by year of launch rather than pennant number has been made.  Interested parties are invited to comment here Benea (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship article titles 

message: I left a message about DAB_vs_dab on the project banner talk page. If this change can be made it would help. --Brad (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Good catch, Brad!  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin needed for project banner change. 

message: :This discussion has been moved to Naming conventions (ships), per User:Brad101.
:Just a post for the archive bot. --Brad (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightship naming and standardization 

message: I'm working on an article on , a Russian American Line ship that was known as "Царь" in Russian/Cyrillic. This brought up an interesting question: should Cyrillic ship names put in italics like those in Latin alphabets? I would think so, but I wasn't sure. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds logical to me... I'd assume that anyone interested in knowing the Cyrillic version of the name would be aware that certain characters change appearance (quite considerably) when in italics. That's the only potential issue with it I can think of. Martocticvs (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics for Cyrillic ship names? 

message: Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments sought on the [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] article 

message: I proposed to merge  Floating storage and offloading unit and Floating Production Storage and Offloading articles. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: One of today's selected anniversaries on the Main Page is the 1772 sailing of HMS Resolution under the command of James Cook.  However I noticed that the article on the Resolution is named HMS Resolution (Cook) rather than something like our standard HMS Resolution (1770) or HMS Resolution (with the dab page then moved to HMS Resolution (disambiguation)).  Can anyone think of a good reason not to rename the ship?  As a point of reference, the article on Drake's ship is not named Golden Hind (Drake) and neither is Nelson's named HMS Victory (Nelson).  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was created in 2003 and seems to have gone largely unnoticed since then.  I don't see any reason not to fit it to our conventions and name it HMS Resolution (1772). It could do with a good overhaul anyway, needs a new infobox, etc so fixing the title would be a first step. Benea (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, HMS Resolution (1772) appears to be the way to go. Parsecboy (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1772? She was launched in 1770... though bought by the navy in 1771. 1772 would be the commissioning date then? Wouldn't we normally go by launch or acquisition date? Martocticvs (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Which it seems you did even as I was typing it :) Martocticvs (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I've just finished some work on the page, amongst other errors it contained was the claim she was purchased in 1772. She was purchased in November 1771 (and commissioned then as well) so I've moved the article to HMS Resolution (1771). She was also HMS Drake originally (for about a month) but I think this is where 'most well known incarnation' comes into play. Benea (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Resolution article misnamed? 

message: An A-Class review for American Palestine Line is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This article does not fall under MilHist therefore needs attention by this project to pass A-class. Please comment when you have a few minutes. --Brad (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[American Palestine Line]] now open 

message: There is a new, consolidated discussion of the following proposed category renames:
::Category:Royal New Zealand Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy
::Category:Imperial Russian Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Imperial Russian Navy
::Category:Royal Thai Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Thai Navy
::Category:Australian Colonial navy ships → :Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies
::Category:Continental Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Continental Navy
::Category:Imperial Beiyang Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Imperial Beiyang Navy
::Category:Royal Danish Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Danish Navy
::Category:Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy
::Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy
::Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Norwegian Navy
::Category:Royal Swedish Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Royal Swedish Navy
::Category:Russian Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Russian Navy
::Category:South African Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the South African Navy
::Category:Spanish Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Spanish Navy
::Category:Turkish Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Turkish Navy
::Category:Union Navy ships → :Category:Ships of the Union Navy
(The first three listed were in separate discussions nominated on 12 July that have been consolidated with the rest of the proposed renames.) The discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 15#Ships by navy. All interested editors are welcome to participate. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated category renaming discussion 

message: SS Celtic was the HQ of Operation Frankton. Was she known as HMS Celtic at the time? Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No ship named HMS Celtic has ever been commissioned with the Royal Navy according to J. J. Colledge. She would not therefore have borne the prefix. Benea (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the photos of the ship, are you sure that it was a steamship? It looks like a sailing vessel to me: no stack(s), no propellor. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS/HMS Celtic 

message: I have proposed a merger of  and  into ; all three articles describe the same ship. All interested editors are welcome to discuss the proposal here — Bellhalla (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal, ''George Washington''/''Catlin'' 

message: I just completed a tag and assess run and came across a few articles which by all accounts should be disambig pages but aren't. There seems to be enough information to warrant individual stubs for each of the ships, but I just don't have the time to make it happen and sort through all the mess. Here is the list:
* Empress of Britain
* Empress of Canada
* 
* Stockholm (Ships)
* 
I would appreciate it if someone would have at this. -MBK004 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on the Stockholms with a plan of creating expanded articles for each ship and eventually turning Stockholm (Ships) into a redirect to Stockholm (disambiguation) (doing a separate ship disambiguation page seems a bit superfluous to me). I can sort that one out at least. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stockholm (Ships) is now done. I've branched off the first ship into  (which was the original name), the second and third into  (they were essentially the same ship, so I felt it was pointless to create separate pages for both - most content would have had to be duplicated), the fourth to  (this was already done earlier), and changed Stockholm (Ships) into a redirect to Stockholm (disambiguation) as detailed above. And I couldn't resist expanding SS Potsdam slightly and SS Stockholm (1941) radically. Both also had military careers, so the people more interested in that side of things might want to take a look - Stockholm especially could use input from someone more experienced than me in that field. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gripsholms are also done. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oslofjords are also done. I chose to ignore the two last ships as there was only one source that mentioned them, with very vague information. The first three can be found at ,  and , with a disambiguation at Oslofjord (disambiguation). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Empress of Britains done — Bellhalla (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Empress of Canadas done — Bellhalla (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And another one, Pride of Le Havre. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pride of Le Havre is done. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...not to be a pain in the butt, but that particular ex-Olau Hollandia was built in 1989, not 1981. I'll make some general fixes into the article, while I'm at it I'll also move it under the correct year. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang. I thought I got that right. Thanks for catching it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's confusing with two very similar ships with the same name built for the same company just eight years apart. Also, I need a life. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Or maybe one of us should drop a note at his talk page (in the kindest of terms of course), noting that those should be separate articles? This would save trouble all around. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 08:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it not be me?  I came across one of his articles entitled 'Captain George E.T. Eyston'.  I moved it to the conventional George E. T. Eyston (as we don't include rank in article titles) and explained my thinking on the talk page.  I'm fairly sure I have both convention and consensus on my side, but I've discovered that he's acted very strongly (and garnered accusations of incivility for it) at other attempts to move it.  I have a nasty feeling it might kick off, and he might take a note on the Miss England issue the wrong way.  Ho hum. Benea (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that definately doesn't sound nice. I can drop him a note on Miss England (famous last words). On an unrelated note to that subject, an update on Spirit of Tasmania: I've branched off Spirit of Tasmania III into , and the first, non-numbered Spirit of Tasmania has previously been combined into the article of . That leaves just Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II to be taken care of. So we're half-way there ;). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Miss England (Speedboat): I have left a (hopefully very diplomatical) note at User talk:Andy Dingley#Miss England (Speedboat) and naming conventions. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As noted on my own talk page, I'd prefer it if you let the original creator finish the page, then split it. The problem is that I don't have enough material for three decent pages here, but hopefully do for one. If someone else were to come along later and add to it, then that could obviously change. In particular, I've almost nothing on III.   Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually hang fire on Miss England, the user appears to still be adding to it. Benea (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've done the Rainbow Warrior and have pointed (hopefully) all the links to the appropriate articles. Benea (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found another: Innisfallen with a whopping five ships! After my Pride of Le Havre experience, I'll leave it for others. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet another: NASA recovery ship, about two ships. (See, procrastinating on taxes, can be useful for something... ) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And another: USCGC Greenbrier, two ships. Benea (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another:  (two ships). I have left a note on the articles talk page as the original creator had also been wondering about that (no idea if he's still around). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SS Orsova is now done, with content split into  and . -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The Innisfallen does describe a series of ships, but the all served the same route (served on the Irish Sea route between Cork and Fishguard).  I suggest that they should be kept together ClemMcGann (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet another: . Every time I think they're all done I find yet another. -MBK004 18:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a template  with better wording for our WikiProject, plus a link to our index page guidelines. If we use this, we can see what needs to be split from transclusions of the template. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Niiice! They should also appear in the automated bot cleanup page as well. --Brad (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig pages trying to be more 

message: Attempting to summarize the ones still needing attention:
*Miss England (Speedboat)
*Spirit of Tasmania (per comment from  above. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Innisfallen does describe a series of ships, but the all served the same route (served on the Irish Sea route between Cork and Fishguard).  I suggest that they should be kept together ClemMcGann (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And yet another: . Every time I think they're all done I find yet another. -MBK004 18:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a template  with better wording for our WikiProject, plus a link to our index page guidelines. If we use this, we can see what needs to be split from transclusions of the template. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Niiice! They should also appear in the automated bot cleanup page as well. --Brad (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I was reading this DOD press release, Navy Names Two Virginia Class Submarines, when I happened to notice some hyperlinks ... which turned out to be to Wikipedia!
—WWoods (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! I've added it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An official resource 

message: I have proposed a merge of  into . All interested editors are welcome to discuss the proposal here — Bellhalla (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles have now been merged into . — Bellhalla (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal, ''Imperator'' 

message: The article USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) has been nominated for deletion and the discussion is here. Comments welcome. --Brad (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran into this AfD late last night (actually early this morning), but went to bed because I figured I must be imagining things.  I mean, the USN commissioning a building?!?  Someone tell me this is all part of a sleep deprivation-induced hallucination!  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe the USN is copying the RN's Stone frigates? —WWoods (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading of it, the discussion is one or two editors who want to keep the article versus lots who don't. The closing admin shouldn't have too much trouble determining consensus. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is badly named now. It is about the training, not about the command that does the training. Better would be United States Navy Basic Training. IMHO, articles moved without discussion should be moved back to their original places until discussion takes place. Lou Sander (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I attempted to move the article to United States Navy Basic Training, but it now has been moved to Recruit Training Command not even mentioning the US Navy and ignoring that other services and nations might use that term. Could someone with a bit more diplomacy skills than I have please intervene? Apparently my concerns over the title and copyvios in the article are not worth discussion to the two new users taking control of the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Enterprise deletion discussion. 

message: There has been a proposal to merge SMS Panther (1885) into SMS Leopard. This is of especial interest as this is not a case of the same ship with different names at different stages of its career, but two distinct warships. The discussion is here. Benea (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal, SMS Panther/SMS Leopard 

message: There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment. 
The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page. 
I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it might be a good way to attract more members to pitch in when an article is in an approval phase... Martocticvs (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject notification bot 

message: Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa class battleship FAR 

message: This article has been created by a new editor - his/her first article. Would any editor care to improve on it as it comprises of extracts from the ship's log only at the moment. As it's the creator's first article, please go easy on him/her, encourage rather than criticise. Remember, it takes a long while to learn all the ins and outs of the Wiki (I'm still learning myself!). Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked the article. It was a bit too much like a personal record of this person's ancestor as it stood, but I've added sources, and expanded the article to be more about the actual ship. Benea (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Actaeon (1831)]] 

message: An IP recently created the article Steamboats of the Mississippi.  Its an article that Wikipedia should have, but I noticed that the section on the Natchez was just a cut and paste from the Natchez (boat) article.  Not even cut from the wikicode, just cut from the actual appearance on the page.  What should we do about this page, in anything?  If it's just cutting/pasting rom other Wikipedia articles, is it a valid article?--Bedford Pray 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Natchez (boat) is currently some form of a bloated ship list page, describing nine civilian Natchezes, three US Navy ones and a Brazilian Navy one. Standard procedure would be to hive off the individual ship information to their own articles. But which article are you concerned about being valid, the Steamboats of the Mississippi or the Natchez (boat) one? Benea (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steamboats of the Mississippi is the one I'm concerned for.  It needs wikify, more references, and definitely inline citations.  I personally wrote the Natchez article, which was intended to be just one boat (I had just written the Robert E. Lee (steamboat) article at the time) and ballooned.  Also, those pictures of boats on the SotM page are rather huge.--Bedford Pray 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous conversation on Natchez is here. WP articles are open to anyone to do anything with the text they wish. I don't see any problem with grabbing text from one article to fill another. --Brad (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with minor copying/pasting.  Heck, I do it with a lot of my WNA KY monuments.  But a whole page of duplicated information?  Why not just make a list?--Bedford Pray 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steamboats of the Mississippi]] 

message: This  is evidently supposed to display rather differently...  TREKphiler hit me ♠  17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Piotrus deleted the template on 31 January 2008, on the grounds that it was apparently 'Redundant to another image'. This image was presumably :Template:V-boats.  Benea (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch a little 

message: Some people are copying text and articles verbatim from the online Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and then posting the message: "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" in the reference section.  While the information is basically good, it seems a bit unencyclopedic in its detail and style – with a bit of military jargon.  I don't mind helping to cleanup these types of articles and put them into a more encyclopedic context, but I want to make sure that I won't be stepping on someone's toes, or making efforts at cross purposes to the Ships Project.  Any thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions which goes about explaining how to convert danfs text. The text is supposed to be worked over so that it makes sense to all readers on WP. Often you have specify US Navy where danfs only says Navy expecting that the reader already knows about the US relation. --Brad (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that message comes from , and should remain on the article even after the text is cleaned-up. A way to find these articles is to use this category: :Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. -MBK004 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships 

message: I got tired of waiting and started to use my AWB on assessment runs. It's somewhat tedious but allows an "eye on" each article that needs a tag. Some problems I've seen are redirect pages that have categories in place meaning there really shouldn't be an assessment tag there. It's hard to determine by looking at a talk page whether or not the page is a redirect. I'm not sure how to handle those except maybe using class=NA and importance=low or NA. There are also articles with incorrect categories as in some bio articles with ship categories in place though I've not tagged the ones that have WPBIO tags. Again, it can be hard to determine by seeing only the talk page. I just ran through :Category:Destroyers and of 2300 articles only about 200 needed tags so that's less than 10% overall. --Brad (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects shouldn't have a banner at all, as they have no content whatsoever. In any case, good job finding those articles, I'm sure it isn't the most fun task :) Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with no banner on redirect pages, but one can assess them with "class=redirect" and "importance=NA" which displays appropriately. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect class is apparently not recognized by our banner? Example would be Talk:USAT Saratoga but using that class does not remove it from the unassessed articles category so this will be a problem. We do need to do something with these redirect pages as they will always be subject to tagging by AWB or a bot run in the future. So, we should either redirect the talk page of the redirect to the talk page of the destination article or find an appropriate way to tag the article. Maybe |class=NA |importance=NA ?--Brad (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also of some relevance, it doesn't seem that we have a :Category:Redirect-Class Ships articles. Does anyone see a need for it? Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you. When I've come across these redirects with talk page banners, I've removed the banners. Should we remove the categories on the redirect as well? -MBK004 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no real reason to track redirects at all; the only purpose they serve is to direct readers to an article they might have the exact title for. There's no possibility of expansion or sourcing, etc. (the reasons we track articles in the first place), so no need to assess and track them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the categories on redirects are things like :Category:United States Navy ship names on pages like , where there's only one Navy ship of that name. Are we proposing eliminating those as well? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make more sense to me to simply place USS Matsonia on the actual page instead of on the undabbed redirect, in order to get the plain name in the category (which I think is the question you're asking). Here's a slightly related question; why is the Matsonia article dabbed anyways? Is there another USS Matsonia? And if so, why is the undabbed name not a shipindex page? Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe the best thing to do with the redirects is to redirect the talk page to the article or move the tag into a hidden comment so that future bot runs won't tag it again? You could also apply the same idea to articles tagged that don't belong to Ships. --Brad (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as the category above goes, I suppose it's a somewhat unique case, in that it's not tracking individual articles, but the names of ships, so categories on the undabbed redirects are required. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: That's the best idea I've heard with regards to this. I'm about to go on an assessment spree through our backlog and I'm just going to blank the redirect talk pages, although I could be persuaded to redirect them to the talk page of the proper article. -MBK004 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with blanking the page is that it will get picked up again by a bot or AWB the next time it runs past. As I just discovered this morning, another user decided to help us out by using |auto=yes on hundreds of redirect pages most of them being redirects for LST's. So there are now about 200 more articles in the unassessed importance category than there are in the unassessed class category. This gets worse by the day! We really need to prevent this from happening again and the only way I can see to do that is to either redirect the page as you mentioned or re/place the tag with  so that they won't get picked up again and they won't be classed. Right now I'm glad that a bot didn't make this run as it wouldn't have caught these problems. I'm trying to repair the damage at the moment --Brad (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case I used a special edit summary last night so I could find them again. I'll start to redirect them because that's what I've discovered is the proper thing to do. Are you sure that another AWB run or a bot will not undo the redirect? I've even seen these talk pages of redirects deleted, but a bot run would just create the page again because of the categories. -MBK004 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is supposed to ignore redirect pages, yes. At this point however I think future bot or AWB runs will not be needed as I'm still hovering around a 10% average in the amount of articles that were not tagged. This sort of tells me that after this assessment run all that will be needed is to watch the new articles feed and pick out the few remaining articles that could be unassessed. I'm quite sure that we're at 95% or more of articles that have been assessed. Each time I ran AWB I was able to perfect the tagging and doing the image, category, template and disambig pages myself. The category tree is so full of redundancy that I'm often going over articles 2 or 3 times. --Brad (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now using AWB

message: I've been thinking about how to avoid tagging redirect pages and it occurred to me that in all likelihood redirect talk pages will be completely blank of content. Therefore, if I avoid tagging completely blank pages it should cut down on the number of redirect pages being tagged. This still isn't perfect as there are a number of articles out there with blank talk pages but I'd rather leave some untagged than have to clean up hundreds of redirects. In a lot of cases the talk pages have had some content already in place be it other project tags, danfs tags or talk from other editors. I broke the 1000 mark earlier today and fear that a lot of them are actually redirects; I guess we'll see. --Brad (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best idea I've heard with regards to this. I'm about to go on an assessment spree through our backlog and I'm just going to blank the redirect talk pages, although I could be persuaded to redirect them to the talk page of the proper article. -MBK004 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with blanking the page is that it will get picked up again by a bot or AWB the next time it runs past. As I just discovered this morning, another user decided to help us out by using |auto=yes on hundreds of redirect pages most of them being redirects for LST's. So there are now about 200 more articles in the unassessed importance category than there are in the unassessed class category. This gets worse by the day! We really need to prevent this from happening again and the only way I can see to do that is to either redirect the page as you mentioned or re/place the tag with  so that they won't get picked up again and they won't be classed. Right now I'm glad that a bot didn't make this run as it wouldn't have caught these problems. I'm trying to repair the damage at the moment --Brad (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case I used a special edit summary last night so I could find them again. I'll start to redirect them because that's what I've discovered is the proper thing to do. Are you sure that another AWB run or a bot will not undo the redirect? I've even seen these talk pages of redirects deleted, but a bot run would just create the page again because of the categories. -MBK004 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB is supposed to ignore redirect pages, yes. At this point however I think future bot or AWB runs will not be needed as I'm still hovering around a 10% average in the amount of articles that were not tagged. This sort of tells me that after this assessment run all that will be needed is to watch the new articles feed and pick out the few remaining articles that could be unassessed. I'm quite sure that we're at 95% or more of articles that have been assessed. Each time I ran AWB I was able to perfect the tagging and doing the image, category, template and disambig pages myself. The category tree is so full of redundancy that I'm often going over articles 2 or 3 times. --Brad (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect pages

message: Pusey and Jones seem to have built a lot of vessels from the mid nineteenth to mid twentieth century; however, there is little information online about them.  It seems that we should have a WP article.  Does anyone have good source material?  --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning to do an article about them eventually but it takes time to get the references together. I don't currently have enough source material on them. I could probably do a stub now but I generally prefer to wait until I have a reasonable amount of well-sourced info. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gato, I found some good information online and in a few books over the weekend, and started the article.  It would be great to share information as there are quite a few holes in the 100 year old hsitory.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, go ahead with it then. I currently only have the info on the net for this one, which is probably the same as you have in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pusey and Jones 

message: There are several articles @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review that need closing and archiving. American Palestine Line should be promoted to A-Class for lack of any further comment and Bulk carrier should be closed as a fail since Haus had to leave prematurely. There are other old peer reviews to close as well. --Brad (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not knowing what I'm doing but I cleared these issues. --Brad (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to do this? -MBK004 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just went back and updated  for those. -MBK004 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What had me a bit stumped was the |action1oldid=189180104 Where does that number come from? --Brad (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go into the article's history and find the last time the article was edited before the review was archived. Then click on the date and time of that edit, that number will be in the url. -MBK004 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class and peer reviews need closing 

message: :Category:Boxer Rebellion American ships has been nominated for renaming to :Category:Boxer Rebellion naval ships of the United States. All editors are invited to add comments at the category's entry. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename proposal 

message: This page has had a claim, standing since at least 5 February 2007, of an aircraft carrier contact by Tarpon. I didn't believe it then, & I still don't. Confirmation or refutation is needed.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish story 

message: is a featured article candidate. The review is here. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Ark Royal (91) now a FAC 

message: Please note that another editor has lodged a request for mediation for this article at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation for Hyūga class helicopter destroyer 

message: This has been kicking around for a long time with no real developments, and little input, so I thought I'd raise it here. It was suggested by :User:Rama that  might be merged with French ship Berwick (1795)... between the two of us I think we are agreed, but I thought I'd throw it out a bit wider. Martocticvs (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it French ship Berwick (1795) into ? If so that would make sense, longer and more notable career and so forth. But I'd be opposed to it being the other way around, for those same reasons, in which case it would make sense not to merge but to follow the convention of having two articles for two careers. Benea (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that way round, for the reasons you say. I'm not opposed to a merger, and I'm also not opposed to it staying as it is... Martocticvs (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Berwick merger 

message: I wonder if someone more knowledgeable about image policies could take a look at User:Hatashe, who's been making some ship related edits, such as uploading images like :Image:BNS OSMAN Hasan-REN-II.jpg. He's tagged it as himself holding the copyright and releasing it, but since he's indicated 'I created this work entirely by myself with the help of BN website.' and the fact it really doesn't look like he's actually taken it himself (I'm intrigued by the Chinese characters at the bottom) makes me think he's not really got the right to release copyright. (Actually its from here). Since a lot of his contributions have been tagged as copyvios, I don't think he really has a handle on how public domain, fair use, etc work.  He's also uploaded :Image:BN Hatashe.gif which I'm also not entirely sure about, being a copy (cut out of a background with paint?) of the emblem of the Bangladeshi Navy. Benea (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Rlandmann (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladeshi Navy edits 

message: Participation welcome on this article, which needs careful handling. Ty 06:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Park West Gallery]] 

message: I've nominated the above article for deletion, as it's an unsalvageable trainwreck of OR and unsourced conjecture. Any and all interested editors are welcome to comment, the discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notification of [[Exploding warships]] 

message: I've created United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate to try and consolidate the arguement and reduce the size of the Iowa class battleship article (it worked too, trimming the aritcle by 5kbs :-) however I reconginze that I am pro-battleship, so for NPOV compliance I was hoping that someone detached from the issue could take a look at the article and see what it needs insofar as NPOC compliance is concerned. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should everything be capitalized in the name? I think at least Debate should be in lowercase... — Bellhalla (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, to be honest. I capitalized everything because I assumed this would a proper name, although I am certainly open to changing the name if we decided to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Naval gunfire support is lowercased in its article title too.  I was just referred to wp:NEO (Avoid neologisms) in another discussion;  it seems relevant here.   The article looks like it serves a useful role, but unless there is a source for the USNGSD being a term, that shouldn't be the title (or perhaps by a strict reading of the NEO policy the article shouldn't be allowed).  The NEO guideline actually suggests going with a long, awkward phrase, to avoid endorsing a neologism.  Perhaps "Debate on naval gunfire support in the United States of America"?  doncram (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: MS Prince Albert II has been nominated for deletion as non-notable; nomination is here. --Brad (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Prince Albert II Article for deletion 

message: I just added a table to Wickes class destroyer#Wickes class ships, my intent was to sort by dates, but when I finished I found out the date columns sorted alphabetically instead of chronologically. Does anyone have a solution to sort chronologically? Would I just need to convert them to some other numerical format or something? Maybe the sort is dependent on each user's date display prefs, but I figure someone else must have run into this problem before. Ideas? Thanks in advance. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try template . — Bellhalla (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which uses entries like. Or use template  which uses entries like . doncram (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  has been deprecated in favor of , by the way. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, that sounds bad, and DTS2 is being used a lot now in new tables in wp:NRHP.  As this gets out of ships relevance, I just posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates:  could you possibly please expand on the issue there?  doncram (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the notice thats on Template:dts2/doc. I know nothing more about it than that. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I just do it manually (|2008-08-088 August 2008 It works for me, and no need to worry about deprecated templates. Woody (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be able to just use the format 2008-12-31 (no need for the "span" coding).  That format automatically uses the user's prefered date format from the "Date and Time" tab of their own "My preferences" settings.  I haven't tested it in a sortable table, but I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work for correctly sorting by date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the same thing as manually inputting it per my suggestion: it will work, but for the majority of readers (IPs, those who have no preferences set) it will show up as 2008-08-08 and this doesn't read well. As an article has to be consistent per WP:MOSNUM, in the text the dates would have to be written like that as well, which certainly wouldn't read well for the majority. Woody (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Oops, dts2 doesn't work after all. Guess I shouldn't have used month day year, or I need to make a dts3 template to handle those.--Dual Freq (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a dts3 template based on the dts2 that does the trick. Once I sorted by launch date I noticed 14 destroyers were launched on the same day, July 4, 1918, with 8 of them launched at Union Iron Works. That must have been some ceremony. Is there any way to convert without making a custom template that's called 333 times from the same table? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic, but it looks like those destroyers were only the tip of the iceberg, "July 4, 1918, On a single day, 95 ships were launched from shipyards nationwide..." --Dual Freq (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table sorting by dates 

message: Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 opened at MilHist, please comment Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 

message: We could really use a B-Class checklist for our template to use on those articles that don't fall under Milhist. We can just adopt the same checklist that Milhist uses. Yes? No? --Brad (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be great. I think Kirill Lokshin is the one who has been maintaining  lately. He might have some pointers, suggestions, etc., if we decide to adopt the feature. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely I think it would be an excellent addition to our banner - and if we can have it with your proposed modification to enable c-class support as well, doubly so. Martocticvs (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The way this is done in  is through ; that sub-template automatically assigns a rating based on the B-Class parameters.  It should be fairly trivial to have it also assign a C-Class rating if only certain ones are met, if that's what you're looking to do. Kirill (prof) 14:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you foresee any potential trouble our checklist options might cause with the Milhist template on the same article? I can't think of any myself since they're separate operations. --Brad (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't cause direct interference, no.  The only potential issue I can see is parser limits—the spread of more complex template code will eventually hit those—but that's not really a project-specific issue. Kirill (prof) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Even though that article is rated C class, it is still being placed in the Start class category - looks like that hasn't been sorted yet (the category does exist though). Martocticvs (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had changed it back to the regular template; btw, you can start assessing with the checklist for B and C now and it should show up correctly once the template is changed. --Brad (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! All it needs now is for the documentation to be updated with the new features. Martocticvs (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class checklist for Project Banner 

message: There is now a sandbox template @  and I've been using Talk:USS Nutmeg (AN-33) to experiment with it. All seems to be in order but now is the time to wring out any problems. Please experiment with the template if you have some spare minutes. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though that article is rated C class, it is still being placed in the Start class category - looks like that hasn't been sorted yet (the category does exist though). Martocticvs (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had changed it back to the regular template; btw, you can start assessing with the checklist for B and C now and it should show up correctly once the template is changed. --Brad (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! All it needs now is for the documentation to be updated with the new features. Martocticvs (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox template

message: Is the Corfu Channel Incident article within the scope of this WikiProject? Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's been previously agreed that articles about naval battles and similar events are not officially part of the project, so it would seem not, but I don't have any particularly strong feelings either way. Benea (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never really agreed with that idea. This project should cover battles that involved ships. The Battle of Hampton Roads for example, was all about ships not to mention a very important start of wooden ships being obsoleted. If we continue to use our importance rating, these type of articles would fall under the Low rating. --Brad (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous discussion (incidentally taking Hampton Roads as a case in point) is here. One of the arguments against was in order to differentiate us from Milhist's Maritime warfare task force, but again I don't have strong feelings either way. Benea (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corfu Channel Incident 

message: Does anyone have any sources to hand to help this article out? It's in desperate need of some references (not to mention a bit of butchery to get it down to the point more). Martocticvs (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got several to hand, and I'll give it a go in a bit. Currently at least half is copied verbatim from a book, so no wonder it's not been referenced. Benea (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Centurion (1732)]] 

message: In that once the checklist is activated it will downgrade all existing B ship articles to start since we would then be requiring a checklist. Options are limited here; we either let them downgrade and eventually the list would build back up or we make a list of the existing ones just prior to the banner change and then go back and fill out the checklist. The checklist is on hold until we figure out what to. --Brad (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally favor manually adding the list before it's implemented, as in that case, we'll have a distinct list of what is already rated as B class. We'll have a more accurate picture of the articles within our scope. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 468 B class articles at present; I don't think that's a massive amount to go over... Out of interest, are we not able to add the checklist to them before we activate the new code? At least that way when we hit the go button, everything is as we have it now, essentially... Martocticvs (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the idea (or at least my understanding of it). We could simply copy the B-class category onto a subpage, and cross them off as we go. Perhaps something similar to the recent Milhist TA08, but not necessarily as formal a process (I don't know that we need to reserve sections of work lists and such). That way, we'll have a clear finishing point, as opposed to a category that would require someone to check every B-class article to ensure they all have the checklist before actually hitting "go" on the new code. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also put in a request to have an existing bot splice the code into the template for us.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true; since we use the same criteria as Milhist to rate B-class, there shouldn't be a need for a human editor to actually check the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the bot idea since it would save us the trouble but OTOH assessing them manually would give us the opportunity to flush out B articles that don't meet the standard. Bleh, we have enough to do around here besides having to go through 500 articles so the bot sounds like a better idea. Let me look into the particulars of having that done. In the meantime, in case anyone missed my message above, please give the template some working out. --Brad (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: From the looks of my watchlist, it looks like  churned through the whole list yesterday.  Good job taking the bull by the horns and putting the bot request in!  With a little luck I should be able to review and implement your changes to the template later today.  Thanks again, Kralizec! (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we're ready to go then. The changes made to the sandbox template should carry over to the real template quite easily. You might want to coordinate with Trevor as he was waiting on our OK to proceed. --Brad (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news then - my watchlist was also filled with the bot's activity so hopefully they are all done now. Martocticvs (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, there are no articles in :Category:A-Class Ships articles right now. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are; at least we didn't lose the FA and GA articles. Likely this could be fixed with only a banner parameter change of some sort as the A rating still shows. When I filled in the checklist it assessed B class so something is amiss. Let me see who I can harass at this time of night to fix it. --Brad (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight problem with the B-class checklist 

message: Where did someone get this account of the sinking? If there were survivors from the Regina, why is there a debate about the sinking???????????? (Wouldn't they know what happened?)Doesn't that not make any sense? Thanks! the_ed17 00:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Great Lakes Vessels Online Index, she went down with all hands. The crew presumably evacuated, but were drowned before they could reach shore, hence the question over whether she had collided with something or not. As to where the description of her sinking comes from, you'd probably have to look at the cited source, Shipwrecks of the Great Lakes. But I suspect it has been pieced together at least partially from an examination of the wreck (i.e. anchor out, damage from hitting shoal, etc). Benea (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who added that section, but I tried to check on it previously and could only turn up a article from a Canadian newspaper from the area of the sinking. If I remember correctly, the article claimed that the information was written from the captain's logbooks that his family has. However, I could find no supporting information and I no longer have the link to the article. When I get a chance, I'll try to find the website and post the link here. Shinerunner (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it after a couple of hours searching its . Shinerunner (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your time!!!! That has been bugging me. the_ed17 02:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help at [[CSL Regina#Sinking]]...I'm confused. 

message: Trying to consolidate the various issues we're having with the project banner. I've pointed out @ Template talk:WikiProject Ships and think this would be the best area to list problems so they can be looked into. --Brad (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner problems - discussion 

message: Is it just my imagination, or has something changed in the infobox css info... or is there just something weird happening my end? :D All of a sudden infoboxes are looking all crushed up... though not all of them. For example, 's looks just like it always did... whereas  suddenly looks all crushed, whereas it didn't when I was working on it the other day... Martocticvs (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even stranger, if I hit edit on HMS Victory, it suddenly becomes crushed up as well... but reverts to normal if I back out of it... sounds like it's me! Martocticvs (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... no, not just me - seems the line height in the MILHIST style template the infobox template references was reduced... makes it less readable in my opinion and have said so over there. Martocticvs (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the relevant discussion is here — Bellhalla (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style change? 

message: I'm not sure about the naming convention for Japanese warship articles.  Is it ok as is, or should it be changed to Hōō Maru (Japanese warship) or Hōō Maru? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correctly titled as it is. Benea (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Japanese warship Hōō Maru]] 

message: Can someone on the project take a look at Talk:Ship#Image illustrating "Prehistory and antiquity"?  An anon continues to insert a specific image, and I would like some informed input on the image change rather than get into an edit war on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in [[Ship]] article 

message: Hi!  Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns has lots of national flags.  Is there a list of others, say cruise ship lines?  Thanks,  Saintrain (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... no, we don't have a page for house flags at the moment. Though we only place the civil ensign of the country of registration on articles... Martocticvs (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,  Found an ancient set at Maritime_flag#House_flag.  I would think White Star Line would be more significant than Liberia?  Saintrain (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good point - putting ensigns of the country of registration usually bears little relation to the nationality of the owners/operators... modern vessels are registered where its cheap usually. Perhaps it would make more sense to use house flags for such ships? The problem there is that there are currently very few uploaded. Martocticvs (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a large chunk of the reason that the template for  shows not to use the "flag=" tag in commercial ship articles.  Instead, standard practice is to use a smaller flag icon in the "Ship registry=" field.  See the  or  articles for examples. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-national flags 

message: There are two peer reviews open at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review.
* The peer review for Maestrale class frigate is located here
* The peer review for  is located here
Input from all editors is invited and welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews open 

message: See also: Wikipedia_talk:AIR#Wikipedia:Notability_.28aircraft.29, Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft).
The WP:AIR project has drafted some notability proposals that have not had a lot of discussion but are generally followed.  One of the concerns that came up in actually implementing these guidelines was that they were too specific.  I was considering whether or not it would make sense to have a unified transport notability guideline, since planes, trains, and automobiles have similar boundaries for notability (i.e. notability of broad types, individually notable vehicles, etc...).  Ships are a little different, because individual craft are more often notable than individual aircraft.  Note that airships like the USS Akron are an overlap between the two projects.
Does this project have any notability rules that could be rolled into making a unified "notability for vehicles guideline?"  Would this kind of guideline be helpful or appropriate?  SDY (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We occasionally have to battle an AfD but usually enough of us participate in that nomination where the article is kept. We consider just about every large ship worthy of inclusion but Uncle Fred's bass boat would likely not be notable. Likewise, there were thousands of Higgins Boats manufactured during WWII but a large majority wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion. We decided to include airships only if they were militarily operated as in the case of Akron which was a commissioned US Navy ship. --Brad (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do mass-produced ships like the Higgins Boat, "Uncle Fred's salmon ship", or your average British fourth rate similar enough to be considered a homogenous group (like a "type" of aircraft) or are they all considered unique vessels?  SDY (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two examples are generally homogeneous enough to not warrant separate articles. However, a British fourth rate would always warrant an article, as it would have been a commissioned ship in a navy. Those ships are inherently notable. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines? 

message: According to USS Jamestown (1844), the ship was transferred after its Navy career to the Marine Hospital Service where it functioned as a quarantine ship. While it was serving in that capacity, would it have been given a new name? (Perhaps just remove the USS-prefix?) Is there a separate naming convention for quarantine ships? (USMHS Jamestown?) I suspect they aren't particularly high on the list of important US government ships and I know absolutely nothing about this service. Just curious. JRP (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely she retained the name Jamestown but as a decommissioned ship would not have carried the USS prefix. Not recommended that we invent prefixes to cover a decommissioned end of service life career. --Brad (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just asking if there was already a prefix which should be given for "Alternate Name" in the infobox. JRP (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine Hospital Service 

message: A ship article on my watchlist, , was recently added to :Category:Algonquian loanwords. In looking at that category there are quite a few ships articles included in it, mostly U.S. Navy ships that were named after place names that are themselves from Algonquian languages. My opinion is that the editor(s) adding ships to the category is perhaps a little overzealous in trying to populate the category. After all, they are ships not words. Before taking any action on removing ships from the category, I thought I'd get other WP:SHIPS editors opinions. Is it a proper category or not? (By the way, I think a good example of an article in a "Foobian loanwords" category is Robot in :Category:Czech loanwords.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moccasin and raccoon may be loanwords, but Lenape, Saugus, Absegami, etc. do not meet the definition of loanword at all - these are not words taken into English. Maralia (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the ships shouldn't be in the category. It's not a loanword, in the normal meaning of the word. It would be equally wrong to put HMS Temeraire into the French loanwords category. If there was to be any sort of category for ships named after Native American places/people/etc., it would be something along the lines of :Category:Ships named after Native American places/people/etc. of the US Navy. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) It is potentially a proper category, but it seems to be being misused at the moment. It is populated with large numbers of things (schools/a ferry route, etc) that take their name or part of their name from an Algonquin word, but not necessarily a loanword. A better title might be 'Objects taking at least part of their name from Algonquin words' - that's not a zippy title, and doesn't even cover everything now in the category, the ferry route for example. But I suspect that a better way would be to trim it down to actual loanwords. As to identifying the origin of the words, for ships at least that's usually done anyway in the article without the need of a category, e.g. HMS Elk. The reader can click on '...named for the European moose', go to the moose article and see '...The name moose is derived from the Algonquian Eastern Abnaki name moz, meaning "he trims, shaves"'. (Parsecboy's come up with a far better title, and one more appropriate to ships at least. If we were intent on retaining the link to the origin of the words, the way to go would be to create seperate subcategories rather than trying to force them into a category that doesn't fit). Benea (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at User talk:CJLippert, especially here, you'll see that someone with a fair amount of linguistic knowledge related to the topic is involved. I'd be willing to bet he knows far more than I do about toponyms vs eponyms vs ethnonyms vs loanwords, etc. However, despite this summary of their categorization scheme, I still feel that 'loanword' is not an appropriate label for ships named after Algonquian words. USS Moccasin is a namesake of a loanword, but is not itself a loanword;  is a namesake of an ethnonym. If namesake categories are applied, I'd like to see them more accurately named. Maralia (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted at the category to invite discussion, but, receiving no replies, I removed all ships and ship classes from the category. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about categorization 

message: Anybody ever heard of the above ship? I am looking at a passport from the 1920's with the ship leaving out of the Port of Miami and I would like to know about the vessel. Any ideas where I could look or anybody who could help? Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like I answered my own question. See here and here. If someone wants create an article feel free or I will try and get to it in the next few days. KnightLago (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The DANFS entry for that ship is here. --Brad (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I went ahead and created USS City of South Haven (ID-2527) for it. Any and all help would be appreciated as ships aren't really my area. KnightLago (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.S. City of Miami 

message: Just doing some research on the Australian 11th Battalion which was sailed from Alexandria to Lemnos on the "HMT Suffolk" in 1915. Looking at Wikipedia, there's a HMS Suffolk (1903) which fits the time period but has the wrong suffix (i.e. HMS instead of HMT). Is this the same ship, converted to a troop transport some time during World War 1? Where would I go to confirm/disprove this? Lawrencema (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, HMS Suffolk never served in the Mediterranean during the war; the ship was in the Atlantic with the IV Cruiser Squadron, and then to the North American station, and later on to the China station. There are only 5 hits in Google for "HMT Suffolk", and zero in Google Scholar, as well as in Google Books. It seems HMT Suffolk is just an obscure troop transport. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be this ship, built in 1902. It's of a large enough size that it might have been a troop transport. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This site has a paragraph on the 1902 ship above. You might also try searching for "SS Suffolk" in addition to "HMT Suffolk" — Bellhalla (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. I'm afraid I can't match photos to descriptions/specifications, but does this look like the correct vessel? Lawrencema (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the miramar link (in my 04:17 post), the 1902 Suffolk was about 140 meters and 7,000 tons, which looks about right for the ship in the picture. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - try googling "HMAT A23" - lots of hits relating to military service in WWI Viv Hamilton (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. Great help. Lawrencema (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMT/HMS Suffolk 

message: MV Claymore has been prodded for only containing one sentence. If someone wants to make the save here you go. --Brad (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some links and somewhat of an infobox. Ferries in Scotland are not exactly in my expertise, but it should be enough to contest the prod. I did check the Commons for an image since there are so many other CalMac images there, but I found nothing. I'll let someone else finish the tweaking. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod on MV Claymore 

message: I've been casually categorizing sailing vessels by rig as I come across them, and I've come up against a bit of difficulty in the sloop department. Currently, there is no differentiation between sloop and sloop-of-war in :Category:Sloops. The differentiation is made more clear in certain sub-categories (for instance, vessels listed in :Category:Royal Navy sloops are, by implication, sloops-of-war), but other sub-categories perpetuate the ambiguity (:Category:Sloops of the United States, for instance, is reserved for sloops-of-war).
I'd propose two completely separate hierarchies of categorization for sloops-of-war and sloop rigged, single-masted sailboats (be they mercantile, civilian, or military). Sloops-of-war which are also sloop rigged would, of course, be placed in both categories. I don't think this is a contentious proposal, but it might require a massive recategorization of everything currently listed as a sloop. There's obviously no need to constantly write out "sloop-of-war" in the context of an article about a sloop-of-war, but for clarity's sake, it should always be written out in the titles and descriptions of relevant categories, in my opinion. Thus, :Category:Royal Navy sloops would be moved to :Category:Royal Navy sloops-of-war, and :Category:Royal Navy sloops would be either deleted or reserved for Royal Navy vessels with a single-masted sloop rig. 
Thoughts?  --Fullobeans (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you don't think you're being ignored. When it comes to categorization I tend to curl up in a ball and block out the world. Its too messy for my small brain to comprehend. --Brad (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as long as nobody's going to come flailing at me with a tire iron, I'll proceed as stated. Presumably my proposal makes sense, and, while I'll doubtless regret it after two hours of recategorizing, I'm happy to take this project upon myself so long as nobody fields any objections. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloop ambiguity 

message: For  I have a period source that says the ship weighed twice as much as . From reading the displacement article, it looks like that if a someone is talking about the "weight" of a ship that they are speaking of the displacement. Would it be safe to paraphrase the source to say that GW had a displacement of twice Dreadnought? On a side note, does anyone have access to a source from which I can cite Dreadnought's displacement? — Bellhalla (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jane's gave it as 17,900 "normal" and 20,700 full load; Archibald's The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy also lists it at 17,900.  Kablammo (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are different figures from Conway's: .  Does anyone know what Colledge has? Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Colledge = 17,900. van der Vat's Standard of Power also has '17,900 tons (20,700 fully loaded)'. Benea (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: To answer your first question, it would be safe to compare the displacements.  Keep in mind however that whatever figure you have for the merchant vessel may well be full-load displacement, which should be compared with 20,700 for Dreadnought.  Kablammo (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement = weight? 

message: A new article by a new editor. I'll sort out the infobox and point the editor towards this project. The name of the article needs sorting out, as Ocean Star is a redirect currently. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now at Ocean Star (Schooner). Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start on the article. Still needs more work though. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[S/Y Ocean Star]] 

message: FYI, "The Volunteer" Canal Boat at LaSalle Illinois, is an article about a replica canal boat that gives tours on the Illinois and Michigan Canal. It has been nominated for deletion. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replica canal boats 

message: This image has been listed for deletion. Personally I feel that it should stay in the article, but if it is to go then I'd prefer it to be with a lot more input into the discussion than currently exists. There is no free image existing that can be used to replace it otherwise I'd use a free image. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the main reasons why I dislike having to use a fair-use image. There will always be somebody picking away at it for reasons seen in the IfD. --Brad (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could find a free image I'd use it. Unfortunately, she was built too late for a postcard to be fair game if one exists. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor has made a drawing of the ship based on the painting used and a photograph. The drawing has been freely licenced therefore there can be no grounds for the opposition of the deletion of the Empire Galahad painting now. I've added an External links section to the article with a link to the painting and also a photo of the ship under a later name. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The drawing, regretfully, is not nearly as good a representation of the ship. The number of cargo booms is wrong and the booms themselves are drawn incorrectly (not attached to the mast), the funnel shows no indications of any markings, and the line of the bow has too much curve. Since the deletionists seem to be on their way to another "victory", the article is better off with no image than an inaccurate one. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree about the picture. Maybe another editor can do a better drawing and replace the image. At least there are links to pictures showing the real ship so readers can have a better idea of what she looked like. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Empire_Galahad.jpg]] listed for deletion 

message: When using the possessive form of a ship's name in articles, use the  template to provide proper styling and avoid coding problems that can occur when an apostrophe follows italicized text. The apostrophe and "s" should not be italicized:
:Linked names: s displays as s
:Regular names: Ticonderogas displays as Ticonderogas
- (end of proposed wording). I will be away for several hours but I am sure I will agree with whatever is decided. My cat walked across and sat on my keyboard while I was typing this, so if there are stray characters I missed somewhere in this thread, thank Dino. Sswonk (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! Martocticvs (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me too.  Thanks for updating the guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessives of ship's names 

message: Just finished a major expansion and I'm now blind of most faults left in prose, flow and composition. The ultimate goal will be to climb the GA - FA ladder. Please feel free to slam me with  tags where applicable. The current lead section is the pre-expansion lead section and needs a complete overhaul. If anything please go for the fact tags first. --Brad (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution expanded 

message: There are still major problems with your templates, see above.
Bluenorway (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention]] 

message: Would you please stop spamming talk pages of projects and editors with this? There is no need to post on this forum, three times the same subject. Most of your questions can be answered at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). --Brad (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already warned them. A block is next. -MBK004 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I meant this post to go on his talk page but he's on such a rampage I can't keep up. He apparently understands little of how WP works. I'll have to make several redirects of duplicate and triplicate articles he created. --Brad (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I Strongly Suggest, then, children, to do the job correctly. A parser class for vessels should include standardization of vessel name as well as its TITLE (USS/etc) as separate from the GIVEN NAME and typically bound only to the ID when not under major revision. Superset should include VESSSEL template with a TITLE variable {USS,USNS,etc} and then the ID or name which needs to be confirmed from an index (exists) of full formal names (does not include title). Obviously the template should include the preferred text representation {extremely full title name, title name, name, etc} and should guarantee resolution to the fully validated vessel name of form (no title) name_name_(ID-ID-ID) where formatting is accurate. (You still have multiple records for the same vessels. Sending the parserbot through to isolate and inventory all titles should give a majority of the records, then go back through and move everything to the correct initial given name and ID and correct the text formatting using the template. Why can you not do this yourselves? Bluenorway (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I find both your above paragraph and the screed on your userpage utterly incomprehensible. Maralia (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Barging in and declaring us idiots will not likely gain any support for whatever proposal you're trying to make, which is not understandable in the least. --Brad (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluenorway spam 

message: Earlier today I perused our B-class category and found about 8 articles that didn't meet the criteria and demoted them. This was all in a span of 20 minutes. I also noticed that MBK004 had been demoting articles recently. I guess their in worse shape then I thought. --Brad (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been slowly going through my watchlist and have demoted quite a few, but I've also promoted a few (but not enough to counteract the demotions). I have a feeling that that C-class category will become quite large rather soon. -MBK004 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the articles I demoted were promoted by you earlier this year. Any idea why that might be? --Brad (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class demotions 

message: Seems to me that our articles on Launch (boat) and Motor launch are seriously lacking-- the former, because it omits the history of the craft entirely (surely there was a "launch" before motors); the latter because it states that the term applies exclusively to the British navy.  This isn't my field at all, and I have tried and failed to find sources to improve the articles.  I'm hoping someone would take this on?   TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And Steam launch would seem a worthwhile article-- such an article could immediately be linked to from 65 existing articles. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well noted. The launch (boat) article ought really to cover three sorts of craft. The first was a type of small gunvessel used in the 18th and 19th centuries by the French, Spanish, Italian and Turkish navies. The second was the largest ship's boat carried by men-of-war, and later battleships, large cruisers, etc.  The third is the development of this, carried as tenders to yachts and so forth. Both of the latter two could be powered by steam/motors in the later stages of their development. The Motor Launch article is an interesting case as the article deals purely with it as a military unit, whereas a motor launch per se is simply a launch powered by a motor. I'd suggest moving that article to a more descriptive title about their usage in the British military, and redirect motor launch to launch (boat), and then expand that article to cover its entire history. Benea (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Launch (boat)]] 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started copyediting these articles about a week ago, working from a table I created here: User:Maralia/0.7 Release. I don't know how much we can get done, with only a month's time to work on this. Anyone care to help clean up these articles and/or identify any that may be too poor for inclusion in the DVD? Maralia (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  should be at GA by October 20 if I can get someone to copyedit for me :) --Brad (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ships