Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 13

message: There is an active proposal to rename the article  (with acute accent) to  (with grave accent). Interested editors may comment on the proposal at the article's talk page — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: nominated SS Andrea Doria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK004 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Review for SS Andrea Doria 

message: I've been giving the subject of flags in these lists a bit of thought, and am of the opinion that, on balance, the use of flags is beneficial to these lists. Currently only a few lists (1939, 1944, 1946) are missing the flags. I'd like to add them for consistency across the lists. The lists previously displayed flags but an editor removed them. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of ship launches 

message: I've just botched what should have been an easy page move. HMS Iphigenia (1805) was actually launched in 1808 (Colledge Ships of the Royal Navy, p. 174, Gardiner Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars p.11, Lyon & Winfield, The Sail and Steam Navy List p. 52). A combination of clumsy fingers and an unfamiliar keyboard (mostly the latter, honest!) led to me moving it to HMS Iphigenia (1805)8 and now the system is digging its heels in and refusing to allow a move to what I had originally intended, HMS Iphigenia (1808). Can an admin help? Much obliged! Benea (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it time you got adminned yourself Benea? Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I took the whole of :Category:American Civil War ships and all subcategories, about 1000 articles in all and reassessed accordingly. The result is a gain of about 500 articles to C-Class, a few went to B, a lot of articles from stub to start, a few from start to stub etc. All of those articles now have B class checklists for ships and milhist where needed including the proper work groups for milhist. Found more articles for new infoboxes and another few that never had project tags on them. Remind me never to do that again; halfway through I wished I hadn't started :) --Brad (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we want to remind you not to do that again? <g> These big projects are OK if approached in a methodical way and broken down into smaller chunks. Just takes a bit of time, but there's no rush, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War ships reassessed. 

message: Are there any editors out there who possess a copy of  who would be interested in collaborating in a triple April Fool's Day DYK nom? Anyone interested please reply on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborator wanted 

message: Please see Talk:Steamship Prince Rupert....shouldn't this be SS Prince Rupert?Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to SS Prince Rupert. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steamship Prince Rupert]] move/rename? 

message: USNS Stalwart (T-AGOS-1) has been proposed for a move to SUNY Maritime (ship). Comments can be made on the talk page. --Brad (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USNS Stalwart (T-AGOS-1) 

message: At Talk:USS Connecticut (BB-18) some noise has been made concerning the use of the word obsolete to describe predreadnoughts. Nothing serious has happened, but if this turns into a major discussion concerning the use of obsolete it could affect descriptive practices for battleships constructed around the time of HMS Dreadnought. Additionally, to ensure that things stay civil, extra eyes would be appreciated. This message is being left at both MILHIST and SHIPS, so look for both projects to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people have funny ideas about that word. I had a long argument some time ago with a couple of users at Operation Barbarossa who couldn't accept that junk like the T-26 and BT-7 were obsolete in 1941. Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete 

message: Greetings! Please be aware of this collection of red links, almost all of which are for classes of vessels. bd2412 T 08:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates with red links/Ships]] 

message: The A-Class review for Australian light destroyer project is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Australian light destroyer project]] now open 

message: The featured article candidacy for Nassau class battleship is now open.  Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for [[Nassau class battleship]] now open 

message: Please see this for more. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm careful about this. I went through a similar thing a while back over images of the Bismarck, several of which are in the Imperial War Museum and other British military archives, like those of other German ships, as the photographs were taken as war booty after the fall of the Nazi government. They are considered PD in Britain, the US, and possibly elsewhere and are released as such, but they were not, it turned out, considered PD in Germany (the recent Bundesarchive donation may have altered that somewhat). Some German contributors were at pains to point out that the 'life plus 70' rule still applied on the Nazi-era photographs of warships, and although British and American archives were claiming they were PD, they were not actually entitled to do so. The upshot was that since the claim that they were not PD in their country of origin seemed valid, they could not be hosted on commons, though they could probably be hosted on en.wiki as PD in America. This was just how things stood over a year ago or so, things may have changed since then. But has the argument that while the NHHC website may claim that they're PD, the German government considers them still under copyright been settled? Benea (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (copy-pasted, sorry for not noticing your reply before, Benea) - all images can be uploaded here, but not to Commons; evidently the images are only public domain in the United States. So, if there is any question of possible copyrighting issues for other countries (i.e. it doesn't say "official U.S. Navy photograph"), upload to here with  and . I will also have an OTRS ticket to double-confirm this. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''All'' photos found on the [[Naval History & Heritage Command]] website are PD 

message: Is there a preferred method of linking to ship index pages for ships that share the same name? The hatlink created with the otherships template is the method I prefer, but I find many Ship articles with "See also" sections i.e. USS Abarenda (AC-13). I can't find any guidance in the style guide. - Canglesea (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'see also' method has been superseded by the 'otherships' template as far as I'm aware, at least in practical if not official terms. The only time it tends to be seen is on ship articles that were created a while back, and haven't been edited much since. I assume it's an anachronism like the old ship infoboxes that are steadily being replaced over time. Benea (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And actually our example guide to writing an article specifically suggests the use of the 'otherships' template at the top. Benea (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to ship index pages 

message: There is a proposal to move the article  to . All editors are welcome to comment on the move proposal at the article's talk page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: The A-Class review for Moltke class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Moltke class battlecruiser]] now open 

message: An article within the scope of the project, FV Monte Galineiro, has been nominated for deletion. Project members may wish to comment at the discussion, here. Benea (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FV Monte Galineiro]] nominated for deletion 

message: * 26 Mar 2009 – MV Princess of Acadia (talk) nominated for deletion by Staffwaterboy; see discussion. --Brad (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: And another

message: I've had a request on my talk page to get more eyes on an article about a ship class which has been controversial in the past and I imagine will stay controversial throughout its career: Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. The wish of  is to have more editors looking at the article to be able to develop a consensus of what should and should not be presented. -MBK004 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank, the controversy was limited to a single editor deliberately disrupting the consensus on the article's wording and refusing to state what their actual concern was. Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyes requested on a controversial ship class article 

message: Is the category Category:Ships by IMO number a useful category? The question is raised after that 1364 ships are categorised that way and a user wants this category to be deleted. For the discussion please come to the Deletion request page--Stunteltje (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Commons:Category:Ships by IMO number]] nominated for deletion 

message: I noticed that http://www.greatoceanliners.net/ had totally changed. This website is also still used as a citation for many article. However, I found out that the former The Great Ocean liner that is about history had its named changed to http://www.thegreatoceanliners.com/. Therefore, if you see any The Great Ocean Liner citations, please changed them them. Aquitania (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the great ocean liner 

message: Is there something in the ship infobox to show the air draught (height) of a ship? Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a height field in the full code.  Kablammo (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, have found it. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air draught 

message: We've got quite a few articles lined up (at least 7 I think). One pair of articles needs the hook to be chosen. Input welcome at Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page/Did_You_Know Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hook has now been chosen. Expect a few raised eyebrows when it hits the main page.  Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools Day DYKs 

message: There is currently a short DAB list at Silent Service which is pretending to be a stub, while we also have Silent Service (disambiguation). Given that the main titled has exisred for several years with no substantial change, I doubt it will ever be more than what it is now. I think it would be best to merge Silent Service (disambiguation) to Silent Service, and have it be the sole DAB page for the topic. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Service 

message: The Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a poll, not a vote, as indicated by the unpiped link: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll]] 

message: I started adding some info to this article when I saw it was nominated for deletion.  Then I realized it includes info from two different ships with the same name.  Most articles linking to it will be looking for the current vessel, the first only sailed a few years.  Should I create a new article for  the first ship, I think her original name was Princess Nanaimo (sp?)  Is it ok for this article to be MV Princess of Acadia, when it's the second ship with that name, or should we rename it MV Princess of Acadia (1971)?  I copied all the infobox data right off the Cert of Registry while onboard. Orniphobe (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be changed to a disambiguation page linking to articles about each ship with explanation if needed. So, MV Princess of Acadia (1951) and MV Princess of Acadia (1971). --Brad (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MV Princess of Acadia]] 

message: 1 Apr 2009 – :Category:Future aircraft carriers (talk) nominated for deletion by GW Simulations. There are also a whole slew of other categories not related to this project included into the same nomination. --Brad (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Perhaps this has been resolved since the article alert bot picked it up. No deletion tag seen now. --Brad (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been speedily closed, since the nomination included far too many templates over far too wide an area. It may of course be renominated in the future. Parsecboy (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future aircraft carrier category for deletion: 

message: Can someone please confirm for me whether or not this category is meant to include only ships whose wrecks have been located, or is it for any ship that has been shipwrecked, whether or not its wreck has been located or still exists? Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that it was the former, but now I think about it I've seen it applied much more widely - in practice, at least, it seems to be the second. Shimgray | talk | 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that the category itself is ambiguous, because shipwreck means two different things, (a) the verb "shipwrecked", ie something that happens to a ship and (b) the noun "shipwreck" ie, the physical wreck of a ship. Do we need to more clearly define this cat perhaps? Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always applied it to where a ship sank, regardless of whether located, salvaged, raised, scrapped, refloated, blown up, or whatever. To work on refining the scope of the category, discussion with WP:SHIPWRECK (don't know how/if active) seems appropriate. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered that WP:SHIPWRECK might be a good candidate to merge into this project? Maybe as a task force? Seems to me that the two subjects are closely related enough. --Brad (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to make sense. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Shipwrecks]] 

message: Suggestions by Mjroots (talk)
*Pleasure craft, with the possible exception of survivors of the Dunkirk Evacuation and large motor yachts (multi-millionaires private yachts etc, on account of size).
*Builders of pleasure craft. A shipyard must have built vessels at least as large as a tug or coaster to be considered part of the Project.
:Not the Riva Aquarama then? or the Ferretti Group? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Riva Aquarama no, Feretti Group yes = 120m yacht is over 400ft, a similar length to many merchant vessels in the Second World War. WP:Business is a better venue for yacht and pleasure craft builders. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Commissioned naval vessels are definately within the scope of this Project. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly do we decide whether an individual vessel qualifies for its own article? Perhaps the way forward is to work out whether or not a company is building vessels that would qualify for their own articles, and if not, they are not part of wikiships. Gatoclass (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gatoclass, some of us have tried to establish a set of notability guidelines for ships to do just that. So far, proposals have been discussed, but there are still a few hurdles to overcome. Generally, WP:V and WP:RS establish WP:N as has been proved by various ship articles AfD debates -  being a good example. My personal opinion is that we should cover sea-going commercial cargo ships down to coasters, Thames Barges etc. Not sure about fishing vessels, maybe a size/tonnage limit here? For ships used on inland waters (Great Lakes, Scottish Lochs, Lake District, Swiss Lakes etc) I'd say that a size/weight threshold should exist. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the basic criteria is still whether or not a vessel meets wp:note, ie substantial coverage in reliable sources. As I said at the discussion you mention, trying to do it any other way, ie by tonnage etc., tends to be a bit arbitrary. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside the scope of the Project

message: We seem to have solved the following:
*Biographies included: shipbuilders Andrew Higgins, marine and naval architects Joshua Humphreys regardless of military service. 
*Biographies excluded: Military personnel Chester W. Nimitz, shipping company owners Aristotle Onassis. 
*Ships excluded: Pleasure craft Bass boat, pleasure craft builders Sea Ray.
*Question: Battles involving ships: Battle of Hampton Roads or Capture of USS Chesapeake?
Where to go from here? --Brad (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If military personnel are not included, I can't see why we'd want to include battles. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of input; I figure that with no input it's hardly worth coming up with a scope that only 3 people agree on. I'll consider this proposal dead for the time being. --Brad (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some consensus

message: * 8 Apr 2009 – Move requested from Ghost ship (talk) to List of ghost ships by 58.8.211.127; see discussion.
* 6 Apr 2009 – Move requested from LCAC (talk) to Landing Craft Air Cushion‎ by BillCJ; see discussion.
* 31 Mar 2009 – Move requested from MS St. Louis (talk) to MS St. Louis by Anthony Appleyard; see discussion.
--Brad (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last one's been done already... Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this part of what article alerts on the project page is for? Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested moves. 

message: The report into the sinking of  has been released. I'm still working my way through it, but assistance in expanding the article with the new info available would be welcomed. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Explorer 

message: The peer review for HM Bark Endeavour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[HM Bark Endeavour]] now open 

message: Would someone mind cleaning-up  to comply with our guidelines for a set index? -MBK004 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask Benea to take a look at it if someone else hasn't already done it. He's very good with Royal Navy index pages. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of set index pages, the ARA Independencia and ARA Santiago del Estero pages were tagged this week as "orphan articles" for reasons I do not really understand.  Apparently when I was not looking, set index pages were re-defined as articles rather than disambiguation pages.  — Kralizec! (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the orphan tags. The shipindex template generates a rationale that says to alter links if they lead to that page, hence there shouln't be lots of links to the page. Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Raised at WikiProject Disambiguation. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set index cleanup needed 

message: Does anyone have any interest in creating an article on the British Royal Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (Light) LCAC(L), and/or any material for such an article? There has been some confusion of the LCAC(L) with the US Navy's Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC class}, with some users actually adding the Royal Navy as a user of the USN LCAC! (They were exported to Japan.) A dedicated article would help alleviate this confusion greatly. I can create a stub from the RN's web page, but I'd like to use more sources. However, I've been unable to find any more comprehensive info on freely-availabler internet sites. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on RN's [[LCAC(L)]] needed 

message: There is currently a discussion of the status of the Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship project, the ships' characteristics and suitable references. Editors are invited to comment on these issues at Talk:Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments requested on the [[Future Canadian Amphibious Assault Ship]] article 

message: Maybe someone could look into USS Bainbridge (DDG-96) and confirm or deny that the ship has a CIWS. (Navsource collection of images) I think the answer is pretty clear from photos, at least as of April 2008 and the fact that she is a Flight IIA ship with substantial modifications to accommodate the remote mine-hunting system, but another user prefers to use the ship's info page, which appears to be just a generic description of the Burke class. Thanks for the assistance. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that a photo can safely support some general bits of information—like that an ocean liner has three funnels, or a cruiser was painted in a particular style of camouflage at one point. But, using only a photo to support a more esoteric conclusion that there is or isn't a particular kind of system seems tenuous at best and OR at worst. One compromise way to approach this is to say something like:Ship information provided by the U.S. Navy says that the ship has X, Y, and Z, but photographs of Bainbridge look similar to Othership which has A, B, and C. This sort of approach keeps our information verifiable, but also lets readers know that the USN info  may wrong in a way that avoids synthesis. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bainbridge CIWS 

message: Hi everybody. A couple of days ago I finished a new article (60 kb - almost 150 hours of work) about the shipbuilder (and Mayor of New York City) Jacob Aaron Westervelt. I dont want to move it to the public space before it was edited by some native english speakers that have a profound knowledge of shipping subjects. Is anybody interested to have a look at it? I hope, someone can help me. With kind regards --Rectilinium'♥' 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article to the public space --Rectilinium'♥' 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at your talk—very promising, and will help with this soon. Maralia (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about the shipbuilder [[Jacob Aaron Westervelt]] 

message: The featured article candidacy for Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais is now open.  Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for [[Brazilian battleship Minas Gerais]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for SM UB-10 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[SM UB-10]] now open 

message: I've just removed the PROD tag from this article (due to expire tomorrow!). I've checked Miramar and the ship existed and was wrecked on date given. Editor who created the article is inactive. Can we rescue this one? Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cap Lopez]] 

message: The featured article candidacy for SMS Seydlitz is now open.  Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for [[SMS Seydlitz]] now open 

message: All of the templates of the form "Shipevents[decade]", ranging from  to , have been nominated for deletion. All editors are invited to comment at the templates' entry at the templates for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shipevents" templates nominated for deletion 

message: Mj, why couldn't this be MV West Point (1847)? Unschool 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because it is a sailing ship, not a motor vessel. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  For some reason I had thought that MV was "merchant vessel".  Okay then, I've looked at the abbreviations list now, and now ask, Mj, why couldn't this be SV West Point (1847)? Unschool 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that refer to it as SV West Point? None of the online sources in the article give a prefix for the ship. -- saberwyn 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my question is just an example of my ignorance of the topic.  I take it from your question, that such prefixes must be part of the official name of the ship, it's not just something added here?  Obviously I wouldn't want to add it if such a prefix had to be included as part of its registration.  But when User:Mjroots responded as he did, it gave me the impression that one simply had to pick the correct prefix. Unschool 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that prefixes are something that have to be associated with the ship in reliable sources...we can't just pick and choose what we feel is appropriate. -- saberwyn 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally that is correct, but the use of MV or MS is interchangeable AFAIK. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Prefixes are a bit like someone being called "Fred Smith, Jr.". In theory, everyone whose father was Fred Smith could be called that way - and in theory, every ship could have some kind of prefix. But historically, it can get anachronistic very fast; we don't go adding "junior" and "senior" onto the names of people who never used them, because it isn't really part of the name and it doesn't look quite right... Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analogy, Shimgray.  Point taken.
Okay, I've said my piece, I feel like there's been some honest discussion from several parties.  I'm going to take my leave now, and leave this one for the experts who normally frequent this page.  Good luck deciding how you want to handle this.  Unschool 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from above

message: Hi everybody. Soon I will add 2 new West Point (sailing ship)-articles and I finally would like to ask once more, how the articles should be called (aswell as the existing West Point (sailing ship)/West Point 1847-article). After reading all the comments Im not sure what I shall do now. --Rectilinium'♥' 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ..."for the time being"?--Rectilinium'♥' 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: ....I don't think there has been enough discussion at this point to lead to an outright alteration to the project's naming conventions, so until the point in the not yet forseeable future when/if the naming conventions are changed, stay with the current guidelines and disambiguate by date. -- saberwyn 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks --Rectilinium'♥' 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision? 

message: I came across [this while researching a ship article. Plenty of info there to expand articles with! Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research source 

message: Methodology: All articles that have a year of launch in the field "Ship launch" in . These results do not cover ship articles that:
* Do not have an infobox
* Have an old table-based infobox
* May have a known or easily inferred year of launch but do not have it listed for some reason
 all ships with launch dates
Century     	No. of articles
15th century	1
16th century	19
17th century	223
18th century	622
19th century	1773
20th century	8258
21st century	230
 from 1600
Decade	No. of articles
1610s 	4
1620s 	9
1630s 	8
1640s 	9
1650s 	49
1660s 	18
1670s 	37
1680s 	12
1690s 	77
1700s 	30
1710s 	9
1720s 	3
1730s 	18
1740s 	60
1750s 	81
1760s 	65
1770s 	83
1780s 	124
1790s 	136
1800s 	135
1810s 	121
1820s 	41
1830s 	52
1840s 	86
1850s 	192
1860s 	470
1870s 	117
1880s 	169
1890s 	353
1900s 	467
1910s 	1202
1920s 	394
1930s 	711
1940s 	3514
1950s 	435
1960s 	478
1970s 	334
1980s 	403
1990s 	344
2000s 	249
2010s 	7
 Raw data from bot run
"Ship launched" (A - H)
"Ship launched" (H - M)
"Ship launched" (M - U)
"Ship launched" (U - U)
"Ship launched" (U - Z)
"Ship laid date" or "Ship commissioned"
Other articles
:There are an additional 1,051 articles in :Category:Ship articles needing infobox conversion. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent was not necessarily to compile an exhaustive list of ships with launch dates, but to have a good-sized sample to help answer some of the questions about the setup. But it's nice to know that the list of articles needing new infoboxes seems to have been whittled down a bit. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have been an idea to run the bot to cover articles which have either the "ship launched" or the "ship completed" date, since quite a few articles have one but not the other. Gatoclass (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the existing data though, it looks to me as though it would be, list ships by century only for the 16th century and earlier, and by both decade and year for 17th century on. That would give us a nice consistent rule of thumb, the only downside being that one would end up with a lot of ships in a couple of cats, namely the 1910s and 1940s, but then having too many entries in one or two cats isn't really that big a deal. Gatoclass (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts - maybe we should only list ships by year, regardless of what century or decade they appear in. That would keep the higher cats clear, and give us a nice consistent approach right across the spectrum. If we have different rules for different centuries or decades it's just going to be too complicated. Gatoclass (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe what we really need is a bot to manage the whole thing for us :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we start small, and let it grow. Suggest we tackle the 21st Century ships first. Create the cats and add the articles. Once we see how/if it's going to work, then go back and do the previous century. Once that's done, go back and do the one before etc etc. Mjroots (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we can start small, but we are still going to need a plan before we can start implementing it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bellhalla is categorizing them already, so I guess he's figured out a system he's happy with. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot run results 

message: I have put in a bot request (which has now been approved), so Sambot will be populating the categories based on the year of launch (or year of completion if launch is missing) in . It will place articles in the most refined category possible based on the year.
To summarize the initial setup, ships launched:
* up to 1599 will be categorized by century, Category:Nth-century ships
* 1600 to 1849, by decade, Category:NNNNs ships
* 1850 to 2009, by year, Category:NNNN ships
* 2010 and up, placed in :Category:Proposed ships
If the infobox has a valid year in the launch field, the bot should eventually get to it. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the lists of ship launches, shouldn't those receive the new category as well, for instance List of ship launches in 2009 would have :Category:2009 ships added to the categories already on the list? I was about to go through each individually with HotCat, but if the bot can do this if desired that would be even easier. -MBK004 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be a good idea. Since the bot has already been approved, I'm not sure if it can be added on this run. I'll ask the bot owner and see what he would recommend. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to expand the scope of the request a little bit and made a separate request at the bot request page. In addition to placing the yearly ship launch lists into the appropriate category (as you suggested), I thought it would be a good time to replace the various "Shipevents" templates (, ,  … ) with a single  in those articles, as well as all of the articles in , , and , too. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot request to perform this is here. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Tanit (yacht) has been nominated for deletion, in part based on the fact that it is a private yacht and not "notable", except for its capture by pirates.  Comments appreciated.  Should these incidents be named by dates, or by names of the ships involved? Pustelnik (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment An article about the vessel, and one about a hijacking or action as a result of a hijacking, are not necessarily the same thing. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments 

message: New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons with no known copyright restrictions.  These include quite a good number of ships, and a few shipwrecks.  Very easy to upload to commons using the  Flickr tools. Gwinva (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you upload them,you can add them to commons:Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. Gwinva (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Images should be tagged  Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic photos available 

message: An admin has removed the  template from the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) article per this diff, citing WP:NAMB. I reverted him, asking him to dicuss it here. He reveted me per this diff, stating "Just because a WikiProject does it does not make it right, or give it the right to override the manual of style." 
The MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and as such it can be overridden in certain situations. To me, the template is needed because links to ship articles, especially those about USN ships, are often piped or limited with a template, so that the hull code or pennant number does not display in the linking article. Is this the primary reasoning behind the template, or are there more? Should this template be listed as an exception to the MOS (or is it already)? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. A thought: for Kitty Hawk, the articles are disambiguated (AKV-1) and (CV-63). This is useful for all sorts of practical reasons, but is fairly opaque to the casual reader - we're not using (transport) and (aircraft carrier), or (1932) and (1961). As such, the names are a bit ambiguous - if someone had tried to pick one from a list of search results, without anything to go on but the name, there's a good chance they'd get it wrong, which seems a pretty good test for ambiguity... Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shimgray appears to have identified the crux of the issue.  Looking at WP:NAMB, the most relevant portion of the guideline for this discussion is in the second paragraph: "a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous."  Outside of naval enthusiasts and veterans, 99% of the general population is going to find the article name USS Toledo (SSN-769) just as ambiguous as that of USS Toledo (CA-133).  As such, the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines to preemptively disambiguate ship articles with  is actually following both the spirit and lettre of the WP:HAT guideline.  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: notified -MBK004 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I meant to do that, but got distracted ...  — Kralizec! (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I look at it this way: Most people are probably not aware there had been a Kitty Hawk prior to the aircraft carrier. Maybe they would learn something if made aware that there were two with that name. --Brad (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otherships template 

message: What constitutes a 'deck' as far as the infobox is concerned?  Because I came across inconsistency between the ferries MV St Clare and, for example Maersk Delft.  Both are car ferries, but while the Delft (and Dunkerque) state they have "9" decks (which includes just 2 decks with passenger lounges), St Clare's infobox states "2 passenger decks and 1 viewing deck on top".  Now I know (and you can see from the photo) that St Clare has 3 car decks below the first lounge deck, so this is misleading.  However, what I'm not sure about is whether the figure for 'decks' should therefore be "6" (all public-access deck levels), "7" or "8" (as the bridge is on a level above the sun deck, and there must be machinery below the vehicle decks). Any advice? I'm going with 6 for now, as it seems safest, but if there are any official guidelines on this, it would help if they were more obvious. If not, perhaps some need to be drawn up...--Peeky44 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No official guidelines that I'm aware of. It would make sense that if a ship has 9 decks then 9 should be in the infobox. --Brad (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we mean by "Decks"? 

message: The A-Class review for SM UB-14 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[SM UB-14]] now open 

message: The following articles: 
* 
* 
* 
* 
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was good timing Bellhalla, you've managed to finish work on the Concord and Bennington shortly before my article on the shipbuilder will appear on DYK :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic nomination for "''Yorktown'' class gunboats" 

message: I'm pleased to announce that every one of the 1,367 Empire ships owned by the British Government that carried an Empire name now has a mention on Wikipedia.  Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thousand or so articles to create on the individual ships now. Info in the various lists of Empire ships should give enough leads for seeking sources. I'm going to slow down on the ships for a little while, once I've covered those ships which were lost before they could be allocated an Empire name. Need to do more work on windmills and finish off bashing the Kent & East Sussex Railway article into shape. I'll work through the ships in due course but won't mind if others create a few of them. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much chance of that from this quarter at least since I have more than enough of my own projects in the pipeline to keep me busy. But it sounds as if you have laid much of the groundwork for others to make use of, if and when they can find the time :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Worthy of a well-deserved barnstar. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :-) Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire ships 

message: The National Archives (UK) has recently improved their cataloguing of records of WWII convoys in the record series ADM 199, convoys are now searchable by ship name (escorts are not listed, any HM Ships shown were carrying some sort of cargo as well) and convoy number (no spaces or other separators are used), ports of departure and arrival may be given too, or there will at least be a general description such as UK to North Russia, dates of deaprture and arrival are also given.  See for example a search for Empire Morn.  Hope this may be of use to project members.  I understand that the cataloguing team revisited all the original documents, and that the listings include all ships that sailed with a given convoy including those sunk or forced to retire (no indication of such fates is given in the catalogue), but not ships originally assigned to a convoy but which did not sail. David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII convoy listings 

message: Want to see one hundred ships on one single painting? Check this featured picture candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle of Scheveningen. Rubenescio (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPC Battle of Scheveningen 

message: Hi all, if someone knowledgeable on the topic of submarines/French submarines or otherwise with access to reference material on French submarines, could look over Talk:Surcouf_(N_N_3)#Suggested_change.2Ferror_fix and give their opinions/make any required edits, it'd be much appreciated.
Regards,Daniel (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error/request for eyes 

message: I'm finding it quite difficult to search this list since ship prefixes were ignored for the alphabetical sort. I found it much easier to read when all the "HMS" articles were together in one place, and the "USS" articles, and so on.
Anyone else having this problem? I think this is one list where the prefixes probably should be counted in the sort strings. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK list 

message: The article USCG Patrol Boat, as written, refers to Island class cutters only.  I would like to re-name this article "Island Class Patrol Boat".  Are there any other suggestions or objections? Pustelnik (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the more proper name would be Island class patrol boat (noting the capitalization). — Bellhalla (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USCG Patrol Boat 

message: I'm not sure if the page for the Orzel incident isn't a duplication of what was written on the page for the ORP Orzel.   How do I nominate something for review?  I looked at the page for doing that and I'm not sure where to begin.  Thanks.Openskye (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly normal for long sections to be spun out into separate articles if they unbalance the original article. In this case, there is an additional reason to make Orzel incident a separate article as it was apparently an important political event in its own right. So I don't see a problem here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Orzel incident]] 

message: The edit history from USS Remlick (SP-157) needs to be merged into USS Remlik (SP-157) and then the article redirected to Remlik. There was a spelling error in the original article title and instead of renaming the article it was created anew. --Brad (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually seems to be a duplicate article, not a copy and paste move. Since the content wasn't just copied over to a new page, there's no need for a history merge. I'll just redirect the incorrect title (Remlick) to the correct one. Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need article history merge 

message: I added info about a galley ship with refs eg London Gazette. Somebody removed the refs and left some info. Another person added a fact tag. I have put the link to the removed info on the talk page. But somebody else needs to sort this whole thing out. Kittybrewster  ☎ 08:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arbuthnot (schooner)]] 

message: A quick request for another opinion on List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank. User:Medcroft has been adding some personal observations and commentary to this article based on his personal experience, and re-adds it if it is removed. He's getting mildly irritated about it as well if accusations of pedantry are anything to go by. Could some other editors confirm that this is not just me being a pedant or 'making hay'? (Since it's not summer I assume that's a negative comment, but I've never heard it before. Isn't wikipedia wonderful!) Benea (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the personal observations - these kind of comments clearly aren't suitable for articles. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the very swift action! Benea (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If he does it again, suggest that he leaves the comments on the talk page instead. They won't do any harm there, and it adds a little interest for anyone who happens to read the page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested that to him, he didn't take it well. It's just as well I'm a new kid on the block, otherwise he might get pissed off with me and report me for vandalism. But things like this are not very encouraging. I hate to bother editors with better things to be doing... Benea (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank 

message: Anyone know what "sb" and "r" might stand for in regards to armament in a ship like this? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/abbreviations.htm (which they have "hidden" at the NHHC website): sb = smooth bore, and r = rifle (or rifled). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally for Alert, I think DANFS has a typo: the NavSource.org page lists the one gun as an 11-inch gun and not an 11-foot gun (as DANFS does). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that looked like a mistake to me too, but until I found out what "sb" stood for, I thought it might be best not to change it. Thanks for the assistance :) Gatoclass (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sb and r? 

message: Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects?  If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.  Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects? 

message: A while back the subject was raised of doing away with the 'importance' ratings. Is it time to revisit that possibility? Are people on this project using the ratings in a meaningful way in their work? Benea (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for myself, I don't use the 'importance' ratings as a guide. I find that the interesting history of a ship along with the available information for expanding and improving its page are what helps me decide where to spend my time.Shinerunner (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes there was; I found the conversation in archived posts. There wasn't any consensus then either. But if the issue of what should be rated what continually comes up maybe we should think about getting rid of them. We really have better things to do than argue over importance ratings. --Brad (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favor of getting rid of them similar to MILHIST. What purpose do they serve? And why are they even needed? It just seems like necessary overhead that the project has to take care of... —Ed </font color="00008B">17</font> (Talk / </font color="800000">Contribs)</font> 03:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am alone in this, but I personally use (and like) the importance ratings.  However I think a lot of that is because our assessment scale is very straightforward and does not require much (any?) subjective interpretation.  — Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of getting rid of them... from my own point of view they don't serve any purpose. Martocticvs (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I've got no objection to them being removed. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I kind of like the ratings myself, and I agree that for the most part they are straightforward. I wouldn't like to see them dumped just over some disagreement about what some particular topics should be rated as, because I think we ought to be able to come to an agreement over such topics. Although I concede some topics are rather difficult to decide upon, like articles about shipping lines. I do think however that ship/engine building cos. should generally be rated "Mid" unless they are minor companies, in which case they could be rated "Low". I don't see much reason to ever rate a shipbuilder as "high" importance because I don't think shipbuilding articles would qualify under the existing criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The importance ratings are for how important the article to the topic an article is. So, RMS Titanic would ovciously be a "top" importance rating, while 10. Unterseebootsflottille is "Low", since it's about a grouping of ships, not itself a ship. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that the importance ratings serve no useful purpose and should be removed. The ratings are obviously subjective and don't provide useful guidance for editors or Wikiprojects - I've seen articles on obscure patrol boats rated as 'high' importance and articles on capital ships rated as 'low' importance! Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not agree that importance ratings are many more or less subjective than the quality ratings, your examples could well be correct.  As per the assessment instructions, individual ships are typically given a "mid" level of importance.  However an obscure patrol boat like PT-109 has has a "high" importance (no doubt due to the events following the destruction of the boat that made John F. Kennedy a war hero) while Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk (which would have been the first Soviet super carrier) is of "low" importance.  — Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the English euphemisms, Loosmark. To "do away" with something means to eliminate it, so the proposal was to get rid of the importance assessments. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  thank you. i suspected it means that but just wanted to be sure. i agree with those who wrote above that some of these importance ratings are a bit too subjective but on the other hand they don't disturb me in any way so importantance ratings or no importance ratings, both is fine with me. Loosmark (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing away with importance ratings 

message: I'm winging it here but it seems that we have more editors saying that we should get rid of importance ratings and others that have no opinion either way. I see about 3 editors that think we should keep them. Perhaps a more formal vote would be in order? --Brad (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Results so far

message: The A-Class review for Yorktown class gunboat is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Yorktown class gunboat]] now open 

message: The featured article candidacy for USS West Bridge (ID-2888) is now open.  Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for [[USS West Bridge (ID-2888)]] now open 

message: in my opinion there is a big problem with the List of aircraft carriers by country and namely it includes all kind of seaplane cruisers, seaplane transports, "former sloops", "german tugs", seaplane carries (even those converted from merchants which is basicaly just adding a derrick to lift the seaplanes) and what not. what do all those vessels have to do with the aircraft carriers i don't know. therefore i plan to delete all vessels which aren't proper aircraft carriers, (those which don't have a flight deck and can't land or conventional aircraft). if anybody opposes this please comment. Loosmark (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here. Too many of our list articles don't adhere to the topic they were designed for. --Brad (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Mostly Support. When I think of aircraft carrier, I think a ship designed primarily to launch and recover multiple fixed-wing aircraft from a flight deck, and operated as such. (taken from footnote I of HMAS Melbourne (R21)). However, sometimes the most literal definition of aircraft carrier, "a ship that carries aircraft" is taken. If the list was stripped down and reassembled to meet this or a similar definition of... lets call them 'conventional aircraft carriers'...and this definition was clearly listed at the top of the article, I would have no complaints. -- saberwyn 23:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the logical progression from seaplane carriers to full aircraft carriers as naval aviation developed is the reason why the two have been grouped together like this. To be honest though I don't really see a need for this. 'what do all those vessels have to do with the aircraft carriers i don't know' - well a seaplane carrier carries aircraft. 'Proper' aircraft carriers seems a subjective term, and since the list currently includes only a handful of seaplane carriers/tenders from three countries, Italy, France and Germany, I don't immediately see the point in splitting them out, though if you did you ought to group them in a new list of 'List of Seaplane carriers and tenders by country' to ensure this information is retained, not simply delete them. But returning to the point of semantics, I still think that many people will think of seaplane carriers and their ilk in the sense of aircraft carriers. List of battleships of the Royal Navy includes vessels that were classed as armoured frigates, but are included (and properly contextualised) to help readers understand the evolution and progression of ships. For the same reason I think seaplane carriers and tenders should be included in lists covering the development of naval aviation related ships. I think there should be either two lists, or one list with the wider context covered in detail. Benea (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would happily support a separate list for seaplane carriers/tenders. -- saberwyn 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it is that there is a definite heirarchy. From the top:- Aircraft carriers (purpose built), escort carriers (converted merchantmen), aircraft ferries (converted merchantmen, relegated from escort carriers), CAM ships (merchantmen). I've a feeling that some German warships in WWII carried Arado floatplanes. I'd say that these were on the same level as CAM ships. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Benea i disagree with you. Proper aircraft carrier is not a subjective term, the definition of an aircraft carrier is clear and unambiguous, for example the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary: "aircraft carrier - a warship with a flight deck on which aircraft can be launched and landed." The free dictionary: "aircraft carrier - a large naval vessel designed as a mobile air base, having a long flat deck on which aircraft can take off and land at sea." Therefore all vessels without a flight deck who can't launch and land aircraft have no place on that list. (seaplane carriers, and all those aircraft transports, tugs and all that). When people think of aircraft carriers they usualy think of the most powerful ships of any Navy, vessels like USS Enterprise or the HMS Ark Royal and most certainly not about converted merchant aircraft trasports and things like that. Loosmark (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Loosmark, the converted merchant escort carriers saw active service. they too were front-line vessels. Those that survived were later used as aircraft transports once new aircraft carriers had been built and entered service. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mjroots sorry i maybe i didn't word my comments clearly, i don't think merchant escort aircraft carriers shouldn't be on the list, they had a flight deck, were able to launch and land conventional aircraft thus they were perfectly capable aircraft carriers. What i meant is those merchant seaplane carriers, tenders, tugs etc. etc. (look the section of the article about France and Germany). Loosmark (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, maybe a note in the lead that an aircraft carrier is defined as a ship with a flight deck that a non-VTOL fixed-wing aircraft can both land on, and take off from. That removes any arguement about ships that Harriers and helicopters can use. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would remove all the Royal Navy Illustrious class carriers, Also the Italian, Spanish, Thai modern ships, in fact all that would be left would be the French and USN.  See Japanese seaplane carrier Wakamiya = Wakamiya  was a seaplane carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy and the first Japanese aircraft carrier. Seaplane Carriers were all Aircraft  Carriers remember this was 100 years ago when there were no Catapults and the only way to launch planes from the sea was by using seaplanes. I also remember reading about the Royal Navy launching attacks    on Germany or Behind the German lines using Seaplane Carriers in World War I, and what about HMS Ark Royal (1914)  She could carry five floatplanes and 2 normal aircraft. The latter would have to return to land after launch, but the seaplanes could take off over the bow and land in the water alongside the carrier, before being lifted back onboard by the cranes --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The HMS Illustrious (R06) is classed by the RN as a light aircraft carrier, and does seem to have a flight deck in the Gulf photo (also a "ski jump"?), though nothing in the article about what planes are carried. Re the HMS Ark Royal (1914), WWII battleships like the HMS Prince of Wales (53) with catapults for seaplanes which landed on the water and were hoisted back on board, they were not regarded as carriers. Hugo999 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of aircraft carriers by country 

message: The following articles: 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
are under consideration for Good Topic status. Interested editors may comment on the topic's entry at the Good Topic nominations page. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic nomination for "''Tucker'' class destroyers"