Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 9

message: SS City of Rio De Janeiro and City of Rio de Janeiro appear to be duplicate articles. Suggest the former is kept as it is longer, better referenced and name conforms to WP:NC-SHIP . Can I leave this for you to sort please? Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And add to those SS Arizona (1879) and SS Arizona. Benea (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done those. Benea (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles 

message: Just happened to notice this and I don't believe HSK is a genine prefix, I've suggested at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that the prefix be removed given its controversial nature, but perhaps someone else would like to add their voice to the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "HSK" Kormoran on main page 

message: Is this still Start Class, or can it be upgraded to B class. I've the feeling this article could go a lot higher, once they've actually finished the recovery and decided what to do with her. Then I won't have to keep adding to the article! Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through it and assessed it as B-class.  Nice work.  Cheers. HausTalk 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They've decided what to do with her, Riverdance is to be scrapped. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MS Riverdance]] 

message: Future of the French Navy has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is crystal-ball gazing. Interested editors are enouraged to participate in the AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the French Navy --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on Future of the French Navy 

message: Borrowing heavily from P:USN, I roughed out a United States Merchant Marine Portal this afternoon.  Questions, comments, suggestions, and collaborators welcome.  Cheers. HausTalk 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Merchant Marine Portal 

message: It has been proposed that Survey ship be merged into Research vessel.  Currently both are listed as top-priority articles in our project.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Survey ship into Research vessel 

message: Could really use some help here; the article uses a made-up prefix and was just reverted back to that prefix. TomTheHand (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "HSK" Kormoran 

message: At the FAC for , a reviewer brought up that one heading in the standard infobox—"Career (US Navy)"—crossed the white dividing line when viewed in Firefox. I checked in Firefox (not my usual browser), and both "Career (US Navy)" and "Career (Germany)" cross the line. Does this happen for anyone else that regularly uses Firefox, either in that article or others? (FWIW, I'm using a Mac, running OS X 10.5.2.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does happen to me when I look at it in Firefox.  I will try to fix it, but also, ordinarily the country goes there.  I would use "US" or "USA" in that box, though I do realize that the first career section indicates civilian German service while the second indicates military US service. TomTheHand (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has "US Navy" to distinguish from a "US Army" section of the Infobox farther down. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oof, didn't scroll down quite far enough.  Ok, will see what I can do.  Wish me luck! TomTheHand (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm the one who made the comment, and I am using Firefox on Windows Vista.  It looks like it's because the text is longer than the column.  Since a "nowrap" tag is used for U.S. Navy and U.S. Army, it just crosses the line.  The Germany one is not a problem for me - it reads "Career" and then "(Germany)" is on the next line. --Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that'd do it.  Yeah, don't use nowrap.  Instead, put a non-breaking space between U.S. and Navy or Army.  I'll edit the article. TomTheHand (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, fixed.  Some really innovative uses of the ship infobox on that article, by the way.  Good job. TomTheHand (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! I should have figured it was something I did... Thanks, for the fix. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I just made some formatting changes to the article, which I normally do on most articles I touch... and I am extremely sorry if any of them are horrible and were previously removed from the article with extreme prejudice! TomTheHand (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like that on any of the edits at all. I will say that I didn't know about the  syntax, which is why I had used . Always good to learn new tricks. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and one thing I noticed but was unwilling to touch was dual unit conversions, like conversions from knots to both km/h and mph.  I usually avoid these because I think they look messy, but I do understand that they can be useful. TomTheHand (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox formatting issue in Firefox(?) 

message: I know that there are several ships that are on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and as such, have the  infobox in addition to the WP:SHIPS standard style box. What results is two boxes of differing widths, and can interfere—in one case I've seen, at least— with image location in the article. What I'd like to propose in these cases is that the NRHP box be placed inside the WP:SHIPS infobox (before the final "|}"). I've implemented this in , and I personally favor the result over the current usual implementation of 2 boxes. A bonus is that it requires no change in the use (or coding) of any of the existing templates. Any thought? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My only issue is the way "USS PAMPANITO (submarine)" left-aligns instead of being centered, but perhaps if the NHRP template is incorporated into the ship infobox the title isn't even necessary.  I've made this change; thoughts? TomTheHand (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks better without it, and since we know what the subject is, it's probably not necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what point Tom is trying to make, but it looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gato, compare this version with Tom's version to see what he meant. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay, yeah, Tom's version definitely looks better :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Could the NRHP infobox be modified with an optional parameter that would center the title?  maybe use "alignment=center"?  Then if not used, the infobox defaults to its current style of left aligned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, Doncram.  Later this afternoon when I have some free time I will see if I can figure out how to center the text, unless someone else gets to it first. TomTheHand (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRHP boxes in infobox 

message: Someone has asked on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk about ship terminology, and I thought I'd come here and see if one of you salty dogs wants to pitch in. The questioner's English is not perfect, but he seems to be asking whether there are two words you can use to make the distinction between ships that are moved by sail power and ships that have engines, maybe something like "sailboat" and "powerboat" would be for boats. You can read the question for yourself here and decide how to answer. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I chimed in with "sailing vessel" -- can't think of a more poetic term for the life of me.  Cheers.  HausTalk 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. That term does it for me, anyway. Thanks. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Desk question 

message: Congratulations to two members on their recent FAs: Bellhalla on , and Saberwyn on ! Between WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST, for the last 6 months we have been turning out about 1 new FA every month. I hope we can continue this trend in producing articles recognized for their fine content.
I myself currently have a (co-written) ship article up for FA. The  (at right) was the only passenger whaleback, built for the 1893 World's Fair. Whalebacks were awfully funny looking ships - the freighters even more so (see this one!) - and only one remains in existence today. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Christopher Columbus, and I'd be delighted if someone felt inclined to work on whaleback as well. Maralia (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, 's FAC was just closed as promoted. We now have yet another FA! -MBK004 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles 

message: I've done something to Museum ship that has messed up the formatting of the table on that page. I'd like to preserve my changes and thus don't want to just revert them. Anybody willing to find out what I've done wrong? -MBK004 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same trouble when I tried to introduce the templates into List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy. I think there is an issue with the  templates. I thought it might have been a template limits problem but I checked the page source and it isn't. I am wondering what it is now. You might want to try WP:VPT. Woody (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's nothing obvious -- probably some weird bar character in the template.  You can work around it by putting each column on a row by itself, as per this diff.  Cheers. HausTalk 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch Haus. I'll get right on that. -MBK004 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed the table temporarily (hadn't seen anything but the first post here when I started). It's definitely the HMS template, and also apparently HMCS. I'll take a look at those later. Maralia (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Maralia. Also add HMAS to your list. It looks like those three are the culprits. -MBK004 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , , and  all fixed now. There was a linebreak character that needed commenting out in the template code. Let me know if any are broken in some other way. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone work with tables? 

message: "Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets" was up for discussion (here) and apparently deleted. I'm kind of neutral on the category, personally, but was the discussion ever brought up here? I didn't immediately recognize any of the editors that participated in the decision to delete. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a kind of interesting category myself, and probably would have voted keep if I'd known about the CFD. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I feel pretty much the same as Bellhalla; I'm neutral on the category but a little annoyed that we didn't know about the CFD. TomTheHand (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets 

message: Since we are talking about infoboxes, and bearing in mind the discussion on the Bismark earlier, is it appropriate for U-boat infoboxes to proclaim victories?  I have in mind Unterseeboot 38 (1938) "First sunk was the neutral Irish steam trawler SS Luekos on March 9, with a single shell, off Tory Island, all 11 crew were lost".  How can sinking an unarmed neutral be a 'victory'? - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point. It's trending in the WP:NPOV direction, at best. The culprit is . Perhaps the wording there should be modified? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory 

message: Where should I look to find information on the laws governing what privately owned vessels can be armed with? Jtrainor (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: THAT DEPENDS if you are looking for american laws i would try eiether the libray of congress or...a google search if that dosen't work you could talk to a navy recuriter --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maritime law question 

message: The last article-space reference to  has been removed.  Since it is protected, would an admin be so kind as to deep-six it?  Cheers. HausTalk 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Parsecboy (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks much! HausTalk 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, and good job on all those templates. About a day and a half ago, you said it would take a week, and now it's done :) Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh this stage of the project's not done yet: there's still about 800  templates left, but they're coming along pretty quickly.  They might be gone by tonight... HausTalk 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, just let us know when you're done, and I or another admin here can delete the Infobox Ship template. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I think that the consensus would actually be to keep any of them, but shouldn't these templates be taken to TFD? I was the one who posted about being a little peeved that the CFD for  wasn't brought up here. It might be better to go through the formal process so that anyone with that on a watchlist can at least have their say. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me; no objections. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also agree that deletion should go through procedure. And as long as the nomination is mentioned here there won't be a lack of people disagreeing.  --Brad (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: (outdent) Well, HMS Dragon was the 3,282nd and last of the  templates to be removed.  Since it's protected, I can't put it up for TFD... so if a kindly adminwould be so kind, that'd be super.  Cheers. HausTalk 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   —WWoods (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox conversion: "Ship table" is gone 

message: This is a disambiguation problem. There were two Hornet's in service in 1805. The first one  has no date of launch or build to go on; just acquired or commission date. The second one  was launched in 1805. At USS Hornet, there was an attempt to solve the problem by creating USS Hornet (1805, sloop) and USS Hornet (1805, brig) however, Kralizec! moved USS Hornet (1805, brig) to USS Hornet (1805) citing WP:NC-SHIP but there is no convention that covers the problem of two ships with the same name and origins in the same year without hull numbers. The real question here is if we should disambiguate in these circumstances by ship type and using article naming such as (1805, brig) and (1805, sloop)? Note there is a similar plan at USS Washington. --Brad (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are USS Hornet (sloop) and USS Hornet (brig) sufficiently unambiguous?  My inclination would be to avoid a name like USS Hornet (1805, sloop) unless backed into a corner.  Cheers. HausTalk 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but isn't that USS Washington dab page a bit overdone? Wasn't there a convention established that ship dab pages would only contain a minimum of info? Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That conversation was here but I'm currently on US Navy ships, H. I predict that by August or September I should reach W. I cleaned USS Hornet earlier today which brings us here. --Brad (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I was hoping we could come up with a plan so it can be added to WP:NC-SHIP in case there is ever more of these situations. It is possible to determine the order in which the ships served so now I'm thinking (1805a) and (1805b) would work and avoid having to use (1776 lateen-rigged-galley) for the USS Washington's. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Howabout a poll, as suggested at Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity_persists. For the record, I think Bellhalla's "1805 sloop" beats "1805, sloop".  Cheers. HausTalk 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, since USS Providence (1776 frigate) was just created I guess we'll stay with confusing and long article titles but yes, the commas shouldn't be there. Maybe we could even use USS Washington (1776 lateen-rigged-galley-made-of-oak-and-painted-pink-lost-in-the-capture-of-Manhattan) if need be. --Brad (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Hornet dilemma 

message: merged uss greyhoud and the other ship don't remember what it is called..undo if you don't like it. its kinda crude but what do yall think? ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As they appear to be the same ship - I would say convert the USS Grehound article to be a redirect to SS Yale.  The SS Yale article still needs some cleanup to better merge the text (they currently read as two independant articles on one page, just need to work it into a single coherent article), I might have time this afternoon to work on that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: wouldn't that create a disgambration page? --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you cannot delete that page under the GFDL, the licence we all use for our content. I have redirected it and added the  tag. Woody (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now gone ahead with a more refined merge of USS Greyhound (IX-106) and SS Yale. Anyone feel like doing the infobox for the three ships? Woody (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SS Yale]] 

message: Young Kyle (talk) has written two articles on fishing boats and put a ship infobox on one of them. I have been putting navigation panels, in the same place where ship infoboxes go, on most of the fishing articles. Usually this is not a problem. Then I came across Kyle's article, and put a panel there, so Kyle deleted it, and... well we have been having this discussion. And if you look at Kyle's article, you will currently find the navigation panel is below the infobox.
Okay, we have a battle for dominance - which is to prevail? I would like some discussion on this. Before kneejerking, as ship junkies (like me :)), in favour of the more familiar infobox, please first use the navigate panel to cruise some fishing topics.
My own sense is that it really needs to be either/or. It's untidy to have the navigation panel below the infobox, or vica versa. (There are also a lot of fishing boats in various classes not linked yet). As Kyle says himself, infoboxes are good, and so are navigation panels. Do we have to shoot for one and shoot the other, or is there another way out? --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the navigation panel were instead a navigational footer template, like the ones we use for ship classes, there wouldn't be any collisions in layout, and it could be consistently displayed in the same position on articles regardless of whether they have an infobox. Maralia (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for a little clarification, I did not personally add the infobox to that article, it was actually User:Brianhe (see ), though I certainly support its use. --Kyle(talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur with Maralia -- a horizontal nav box makes the problem go away. HausTalk 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's the same thing at all. I reckon casual users, and many not so casual users, would not be aware that such a thing was there at all. And there is a big  difference between scrolling down to the bottom and then maybe opening a hidden topic index. It doesn't have the convenience and open utility of a well constructed panel at the top right. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a case for prescribing a panel over an infobox; infoboxes contain information about the actual subject of the article - eminently more relevant than links to similar articles. Maralia (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree, though I don't go along with the eminently more relevant bit. Good navigation is just as important as good information presentation, in my view. In fact it's  just another part of good information presentation. However, infoboxes are well established with ships - they got there first. I agree that should prevail. I wanted to have this discussion in case I'm missing something. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about trying to include some navigation into the infobox such as on the Boeing airplane articles (see Boeing 747)? I don't know how exactly it might work, but it seems like it might be somehow possible and would certainly solve the dilema. It's just an idea.--Kyle(talk) 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a collapsed navigation panel that sits on top of the infobox with a Show button. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This is partially the point I'm addressing Gatoclass. You are presenting a point of view that is very reasonable from the standpoint of WikiProject Ships. But it doesn't look so good from the standpoint of WikiProject Fishing. WikiProject Ships does not "own" the articles on fishing boats (at least not any more than WikiProject Fishing does). The design and operational control of fishing boats is increasing becoming standardised under FAO international regulations, pretty much as naval  design and operational control came under the admiralty. These boats are an integral part of the fishing industry. There are, by the way, about four million fishing vessels world wide, 40,000 over 25 metres. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I even see the relevance of the Other boats template, personally... surely there are more than just a handful of other fishing boats that either do, or can at some stage have articles? For such a generalised grouping, the category would be the place to look for other fishing boats - unless they are related by some common attribute such as class or operator... Martocticvs (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, all but the one South Korean boat in the panel are featured in the Discovery Channel show Deadliest Catch. Just 10 more days to the new season... :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This was actually my initial reasoning behind removing the panel. While I like the added exposure the box provides, it felt like there must be more boats that should be included on the panel. I immediately recognized some of the boats from Deadliest Catch (awesome show), but then there was the South Korean boat which did not seem to be connected to the others and the sail boat-- I especially don't see a connection there. No offense to Geronimo20, but there is something about his template that makes things seem over simplified. However, I would still like some sort of navigation on the pages. Moving the box to the bottom of the page seems to be the best option now, but I think somehow incorporating navigation into the infobox would be the best long term solution.--Kyle(talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes versus navigation panels 

message: Hello, I just wrote the article and I need help putting in the infobox - I know nothing about the ships so I am afraid I will misuse so terms. Thank you, Renata (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . — Bellhalla (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Renata (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for [[Lithuanian warship Prezidentas Smetona]] 

message: anybody miss me or no ? i should be on and of untill june then i'll be out of school and i can spend my boring summer days haveing fun here.question...
:: the navy i hear is building a new fleet. but when it comes to particular class it will keep all ships in the same class that are for example say the new warship they are build is it the ign or the igx or somethin like that but eaither way the ship class should cut down to two or three diffrent ship types but there could be many in each class. so what will we do now? plus this could create big disgamburation pages...ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Can someone take a look at the HMCS Haida (G63)?  The initial bot-conversion of the infobox had problems with the "sensors" and "armament" sections because the original infobox had tables inserted that don't appear to work under the new template.  I've restored the new template, but for now I've dropped those sections, and they need to be added back into the infobox. I'm leaving  for work soon, so hopefully someone else can straighten this one out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. HausTalk 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMCS Haida (G63)]] 

message: :Do we have a page with the list of ships and what the "great white fleet" was?
They were coal driven right? and it got to expenseve to finish the curise and they also repainted them is that correct?..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at Great White Fleet - all human knowledge is here. Benea (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the great white fleet" 

message: There seem to be 129 ships and shipwrecks that are designated National Historic Landmarks of the U.S.  I'm not sure what this list-article wants to be, exactly, but you're invited to help it become that. doncram (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of U.S. National Historic Landmark ships and shipwrecks|List of NHL ships and shipwrecks]] 

message: List of naval commanders has been prodded. Calling attention here and at milhist so another one doesn't get deleted without our knowledge. I found it while looking for Esek Hopkins. --Brad (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ok im watching it.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of naval commanders. Woody (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: why delete it? its better then makeing a page for each commander.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about the WP:AFD is to come to a consensus on whether to delete. Your opinion on that page would be welcome. Woody (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod placed on List of naval commanders 

message: my task bar at the top with the "my talk, my prefrences..etc" is jumping to the left to the other side of the page every time my mouse goes over it.. any advice its freakin me out.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the Help desk or the Technical Village Pump. Tis not really a Ships issue. Woody (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird 

message: here is a unmade page that needs to be made .. ANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  refrence to nhl thing 

message: In  there are two naming styles for sub-categories: "Ships of XYZ Navy" and "XYZ Navy ships". Is there currently a consensus on how these should be styled? It's about 2 to 1 in favor of XYZ Navy ships right now (25 to 12, out of 37). It would be nice to have some consistency. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) doesn't make it explicit, but I think "Ships of XYZ Navy" is most in line with the logic of the conventions.  The conventions refer to "of country" rather than "of navy" categories, but I think the same logic applies. TomTheHand (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. Taking a look at  all of them are styled as "Ships of XYZ". — Bellhalla (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Ships by navy 

message: I've opened a discussion on the Captain article's talk page about converting that article to a dab page.  Although tangential to ships, it seems like there may be overlapping interest.  Cheers. HausTalk 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting captain to a dab page? 

message: I've run into the following ship-related pages that seem to break naming conventions is the same manner that our "m/v" pages did: o/a, p/p, w/l.  Any feelings? HausTalk 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need an article for the abbreviation of Waterline? W/L can safely be merged, p/p could be renamed to Length between perpendiculars. O/a can probably be moved to o.a. Does that seem reasonable? Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Hull_%28watercraft%29#Metrics.  It's all there.  Kablammo (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even better; p/p should just be redirected to the section to which you linked. O/a will still need to be moved, because it has other meanings than the nautical term. W/L can still be redirected to Waterline. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   HausTalk 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, nice work, Haus. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page naming problems: o/a, p/p, w/l 

message: Hi all - just looking for thoughts on  now showing up on French Navy ship articles. Isn't this what :Category:Active naval ships of France and its subcats are for? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem generally with the idea of a template in addition to a category. (Look at typical ship class articles within the project, which often have both.) I do think that template in particular could benefit from better design. For example, are the various colors supposed to represent anything in particular? Also, the arrangement of colors seems to mimic the look of a tabbed interface (but not that functionality). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - no objections to the template existing; but I do think it would be better if it were converted to a standard  format so it fit-in better with the other navboxes it's above/below within articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The creator User:Toubabmaster is a native French speaker who mentions that he's en-0 on his user-page.  Is anybody fluent?  Je suis rustique. HausTalk 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Ugh. One look at that template and I've a headache. All it needs is some blinking text and frost and snow in the corners and we could put our presents under it next Christmas. Err, well.. It should be more inline with  --Brad (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted a suggested replacement on his talk page. HausTalk 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, with one issue that I see: I don't have time to look, but I seem to recall there being objections to images in navbox title bars.  I honestly can't recall where it was discussed, or if it's policy or a guideline, so don't take this as absolute determination to remove it.  It's just a comment relying on my sketchy memory of the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch, Barek.  I fiddled with the image for a bit, but it still looked like crap, so I removed it. :) HausTalk 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that your suggestion was accepted. Much better now.. whew. --Brad (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French navboxes 

message: Does the project have a need for this image: ? If not, please delete. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, I didn't even know it existed. We'll put this to good use. -MBK004 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sense this might be a good time to a ring in again with the suggestion that we have a default "No Image Available" image if the image field is left blank in . HausTalk 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is exactly how we should use this. Making it default would be a lot easier than manually adding it to all instances where we are lacking an image. -MBK004 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI: There's a recent discussion started at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders which may directly impact the use of this or any other placeholder images in infoboxes.  That discussion is actually about images for persons in biography articles, but there may be relevance, we should verify the scope of that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, there are good reasons not to delete the image, since it's used on other WP projects. Besides, it's at Commons, anyway. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Unknown ship no picture.svg 

message: The FA-class nomination for  has been open for a (long!) while. More feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow up, USS Bridgeport was promoted to FA on 25 March. Thanks to all who took the time to review and/or copyedit. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-class nomination of {{USS|Bridgeport|AD-10}} 

message: The FA-class nomination for  is open. All feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up, USS Siboney was promoted to FA on 11 April. Thanks to all who took the time to review and/or copyedit. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-class nomination of {{USS|Siboney|ID-2999}} 

message: Template  is now available for use in ship articles that need to cite information from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS). It primarily serves as a way to standardize references to DANFS in articles. Parameters in this template are similar to other citation templates. This template, however, does not replace the need for the template  when public domain text is incorporated into an article. ( provides the necessary public domain attribution.)
There's also a short form available for use with a Notes-and-Reference style of documentation. ( article uses the template in this manner.) All comments and suggestions welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|cite DANFS}} now available 

message: The issue of using feminine pronouns when referring to ships, is being discussed at Titanic.  Is there a manual of style guideline discussing this at WP?  Thanks!  --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes up periodically, here are some links: Wikipedia:MILMOS#Pronouns and Gender-specific pronoun#Ships and countries, or you can take a look at some of the prior discussions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74#Military History Manual of Style amendment (one of the most recent) and WT:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") (one of the oldest). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree.  I think the WP:MILMOS#Pronouns section could be copied part and parcel to just above the "Units and number formatting" subsection in WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. HausTalk 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you both. For the sake of uniformity, I think it should be adopted. Woody (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed from here as well. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add my approval to the group. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tossed it in there provisionally. HausTalk 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using feminine pronouns when referring to ships 

message: As the guideline at WP:MILMOS#Pronouns is specifically for military ships, I suggest that we add a mention at WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines that mentions that in order to maintain guideline consistency for all ships, this project adopts the pronoun usage identified at WP:MILMOS#Pronouns for all ship articles.  This would help provide a more direct guideline to reference for ships such as the Titanic, or even modern cruise ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I think the WP:MILMOS#Pronouns section could be copied part and parcel to just above the "Units and number formatting" subsection in WP:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. HausTalk 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you both. For the sake of uniformity, I think it should be adopted. Woody (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed from here as well. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add my approval to the group. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tossed it in there provisionally. HausTalk 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add a WP:SHIPS guideline for this? 

message: After the issues we had over the naming of the article in the first place, it has been again moved, this time to Battle between HMAS Sydney and Kormoran.  At first with no explanation, and after I reverted it, with the excuse that it was a shorter title.  There are a number of reasons why I don't think this is an improvement, but I'd like to know if I'm interpreting guidelines, etc. correctly.  Any thoughts welcome at the talkpage. Benea (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've cocked it up completely.  Sigh, can an admin sort the title out asap?  And maybe I'll go to bed before I can do anymore damage. Benea (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran was the consensus/MOS title that was settled and is the right one. The move was probably as a result of mention of the article's lengthy title at WP:Requested moves (within another move request, here, in the section"Incomplete and contested proposals"). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed I did mention the title there, as an example of a long title that is justifiably long. The current title is the consensus-agreed-upon title, so that consensus should have been overturned before any move were to be made. Parsecboy (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over [[Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran]] again 

message: Well,  just moved FV Northwestern back to F/V Northwestern. I thought we had decided to move all these pages for technical reasons and eliminate the /? Could someone explain this to the editor and take care of this move. -MBK004 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note, but anyone else that can add things is welcome. Now I've got to revert the move. -MBK004 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/V prefixes redux 

message: I just noticed that someone has tagged FV Northwestern for possibly not meeting the notability requirements. I think we need to come up with something to establish the notability of such vessels. I say this because not all of the vessels that are featured in Deadliest Catch have articles. -MBK004 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability concerns with fishing vessels 

message: A user has removed the  tag from CVN-80, HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF), and HMS Prince of Wales (CVF), along with a host of articles from other projects. Do we have any guidelines for or against the use of the template? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of one, and think it may be best to develop a guideline for articles on future ships. Also, have you tried to talk to the user in question? -MBK004 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future tag 

message: Some shipsters may want to comment on this AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Full Rigged Ships]] 

message: HMS Cardiff (D108) is up for an A-Class review with the Milhist project. The review can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Cardiff (D108). It has been open a while with limited comments. Anybody feel like reviewing please? Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Cardiff (D108)]] 

message: I noticed that WP:MILMOS is tagged at the top with  and included in :Category:Wikipedia style guidelines.  Would it be appropriate to do the same with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines?  Or should the ship guidelines be reviewed and expanded before receiving MOS status?  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It took a while to get the MILMOS integrated into the MOS. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 67#Project style guide and MoS. Generally, opinions should be sought from the Village pump (policy) and WP:MOS on whether there is consensus in calling it a style guide. Woody (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SHIPMOS 

message: I know nothing about the Hydroairy boat article other than it is up for deletion. Just a heads up in case anyone wants to contribute to the discussion of improve the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydroairy boat up for deletion 

message: The FA-class nomination for  is open. All feedback is appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-Class nomination of {{USS|Orizaba|ID-1536}} 

message: An A-Class review for  is open at WikiProject Military History. All editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{USS|Comfort|AH-3}} 

message: I've found two articles with infoboxes without any information. Since I'm too lazy to fill them in, I'll just let anyone who wants to tackle them:  and . -MBK004 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's done now too, thanks to a little help from Haus. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox error 

message: I've seen this term on enough articles that I was thinking about writing an article on it.  A quick google search makes me think "Brutto" is just Swedish/Danish for "Gross", much as "Netto" seems to mean "Net."  I can't quite read the :sv:Bruttotonnage but that certainly seems to be the GT formula on that page.  Does anybody know for sure?   Cheers. HausTalk 19:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brutto Register Tonnage is the term used for Gross Register Tonnage in the Scandinavian languages and Finnish (also German?). Gross Tonnage in turn in simply Brutto Tonnage, but it uses the same abbreviation as English (GT), whereas Brutto Register Tonnage is abbreviated BRT. In some recent documentations I've also seen BRT used as an equilent (sp?) for Gross Tonnage (possibly due to no "native" abbreviation existing for GT), but this in incorrect. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brutto Register Tonnage 

message: Can some nice, friendly admin please move Pacific Dawn (cruise ship) to Pacific Dawn (ship)? The latter is currently a redirect that points to the former, and there is no other type of Pacific Dawn ship to disambiguate against. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the latter had been a duplicate article with a history behind it before it got turned into a redirect. Both merged now under the former. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help needed for a requested move 

message: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Full Rigged Ships --victor falk 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[history of Full Rigged Ships]] 

message: i think a new aircraft carrier is due to be comishend this month..ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) is not scheduled to be commissioned until 10 January 2009 according to the official website. Benea (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm.....my book on aircraft carriers says it is due this month...it was probaly pushed back ..how odd almost a year behind schedule tsk..tsk..tsk...well thats the us navy for ya. ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shitty Kitty will be decommissioned this year with the GHWB taking its place after 47 years of service. The Kitty is older than I am believe it or not. --Brad (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uss bush 

message: Is there any interest in keeping a running list somewhere in the project space of WP:SHIPS DYK articles?  It seems like it might be a nice brag-piece for the project, much as the FA list.  There's a list of the 237 that I could find for the time being at User:Haus/sand.  Cheers. HausTalk 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Late comment, but, yeah, I think that would be an appropriate list to maintain for the project. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I popped a section on WP:SHIPS as one possible layout.  If anybody has a better design idea, please feel free to change as you see fit. HausTalk 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One nitpick, all names of the ships need to be italicized. I'm quite busy at the moment and not able to do it, I normally would, use the shortcut templates to expedite. -MBK004 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I set a record for consecutive typos, but I managed to italicize my way through the list.  It wasn't clear whether disambiguation stuff should stay or go, so I left it in since it's easier to remove than put back in.  Cheers.  HausTalk 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll take a look in a couple of hours and fix anything that needs it. -MBK004 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK article list? 

message: I added this entry a while back -
Date       	Operator	Ship      	Class	Cause	Location              	Notes
December 31	        	MS Johanna	     	     	Hartland Point, Devon.	Shipwrecked at Hartland Point, Devon.
But it has been deleted as unreferenced. The incident must have made the local papers at the time, is there anyone who can provide a reference for this? If enough info can be found, maybe even an article can be written about the ship. Does anyone know the IMO Number of the ship? (disussion copied at Devon Wikiproject) Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - there was such a shipwreck.  there is a mention at the end of this newspaper article  and bits of it can be seen in this tourist video . Good Luck ClemMcGann (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a start as it confirms the year and location. I'll wait for a response from the editor who deleted it before re-adding it to the list. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry is back (in part) in the article, please see the talk page for discussion about references for removed info. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible IMO number of 5172779, but a search only gives this result. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of shipwrecks in 1982]] 

message: The Queen of the Netherlands (ship) article is up for deletion. All interested editors may comment at the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Queen of the Netherlands'' (ship) 

message: I tripped over a few of these this morning and am getting around to fixing them.  Here's a widget I put together to look for names with F/V, M/V, and D/S.  Cheeers. HausTalk 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: C articles added to the widget from . Also, the one C/S ship has now been moved. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  D/S Ships 

message: I've made a proposal in regard to use of sub-cats of  on the Categorization talk page and welcome any feedback there. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looking for some feedback on some proposed categorization changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Categorization — Bellhalla (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization proposal 

message: This debate may impact  so you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders.Genisock2 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reading this huge flying spaghetti monster of a conversation correctly, the use of placeholder images is now forbidden. HausTalk 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? It appears that their use has been agreed as controversial (note that the discussion centred on the placeholder versions used in biographical articles) but I haven't seen an injunction either forbidding their use, either by disallowing their addition to articles or by encouraging their removal from existing ones. It appears that work is now underway to see if a better alternative can be developed. But perhaps we should hang fire before declaring them forbidden? Benea (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to say the same thing; it doesn't appear that a consensus has been formed to remove place holders. We should probably just sit tight until something firmer emerges. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of us here at ships, myself included, like placeholder images, so I'm not suggesting we start removing them.  The reason I brought it up was that I've already gotten sandbagged by people removing placeholders.  As far as I can tell, and I'm not sure at all, Proposal 1:Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles has passed. HausTalk 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That specific resolution appears to have been numerically passed, but the decision seems to not be endorsed by consensus as expressed in the main discussion. The decision will either be endorsed there as being a policy, or a guideline, or it will be rejected, or else close as no consensus.  That stage does not seem to have been reached, anyone removing placeholders and quoting the discussion is jumping the gun. Benea (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders 

message: I'm watching "Sunken Warships" on the History Channel at the moment. Subject of the programme is USS Murphy, sunk in 1943 by a German U-boat. The info in the article on USS Murphy is completely at odds with the programme. Were there two USS Murphys, or is most of the history in the article incorrect? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that it was incorrect information in the trailer to the programme. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Murphy 

message: I've cleared the only article linking to:  and believe this template could be deleted under the housekeeping rule though I'm willing to nominate and do the process as well. --Brad (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Links to Current US Navy Ships 

message: An IP editor persists in adding unreferenced entries to various disaster lists, including the shipwreck and maritime incidents lists. I know that a bit of searching would probably produce references, but I've got better things to do than clean up after IP's who can't be bothered to provide the references in the first place.
What's the best way to deal with these - tag or delete as unreferenced? Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dubious looking unsourced material should be removed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of shipwrecks etc. 

message: I cannot reconcile this info with that on an external website. I have raised it on the talk page. Is there an expert on ships of 1740-1745 who can help please? Kittybrewster  ☎ 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded (though by no means an expert). It seems to be a rather glaring error in the external website you quote. Benea (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: i'll help with what i can and i have lots of books but wwll is more of my area but even with wwll ships im still not very good but still i will do what i can ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but the matter has been cleared up anyway. Benea (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: ?ohwell.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Triton]] 

message: has been cleared of articles using such; and  is a redirect now no longer needed. I also found  which seems no longer needed as well. Can someone look these over before I nominate for deletion in case I missed something? Once again  was the main force behind converting the boxes. I just did some sweeping up. --Brad (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to leave a note on some of the talkpages of the users who have sandboxes still using the old infobox. Other than that, good to go. Woody (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so and also removed another new use of the template. I think Infobox Class has to go to redirects for deletion? If you're more familiar with the process would you be so kind as to nominate? --Brad (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one bites the dust. Deleted under the Housekeeping criteria of speedy deletion. Woody (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, done. Nice work to everyone concerned with the conversions and notifications. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't forget  that went along with it. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Ship Class - Infobox Class - Infobox Ship Class/doc 

message: I started to wonder what the project page would look like in a box layout and put a rough sketch up at User:Haus/4.  Any feelings on whether a redesign like this is worth pursuing and polishing?  HausTalk 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good, but perhaps some rearrangement of the sections. I might bump the admins list to the bottom of its stack, for example. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: the location of the scrollbars make it hard to scroll down the page itself you might want to rearandge those boxes.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My only gripe is that it's wider than my monitor (my laptop  has a 14" screen), so I have to scroll over to see all of it. Can you make it a bit narrower? I would agree with Bellhalla re: the admin list position; I'd prefer to flip it with the tasks box. Anyways, that's my 2¢. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: On a 17" monitor @ 1024 x 768 there are several boxes that are giving the <--> scroll bar which at this resolution makes them just large enough to require the scroll. It's somewhat annoying but I can see there isn't much room to expand without making the other boxes do the same. --Brad (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page layout? 

message: I was just informed  that  has been nominated for merge and deletion into  as part of a proposal that would also have all of the ship disambiguation pages redefined from  to .  Those interested in the debate may join in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 2#Category:Ship disambiguation.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More input is really needed to this proposal by ships members. Poor turnout so far. --Brad (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD on Category:Ship disambiguation 

message: The  stub article is up for deletion. Island Sky is a ferry currently under construction. Comments are welcome at the article's entry at the Articles for deletion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MV ''Island Sky'' 

message: I plan to list bulk carrier for A-class review here at WP:SHIPS within a couple of days, and would really appreciate feedback prior to doing so.  The article was listed as a GA a year ago and later failed at FAC.  Since then, I've whittled down on the FAC feedback to a handful of remaining issues which I expect to resolve in the next couple of days.  Also, Maralia has been kind enough to work her magic on the article, which has been a pleasure to watch.  Cheers.  HausTalk 02:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The A-class review of Bulk carrier is open at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/Bulk carrier.  As this article doesn't fall into any other project spaces, I'd ask WP:SHIPS editors to please consider taking the time to comment on the article.  Thanks. HausTalk 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone could close the A-class review for bulk carrier, I'd appreciate it it's time for me to go drive the tanker for a few months.  Catch y'all on the flip side. HausTalk 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Bulk carrier]] 

message: A quick question, hoping that someone might know more about this than me...  We currently have a number of Estonian Navy ships, titled at ENS Admiral Cowan (M313) for example.  The Estonian Navy itself (according to their official website) instead uses the prefix EML.  I wonder (and indeed strongly suspect) if the 'ENS' is someone's attempt at a translation of this prefix - i.e. Estonian Navy Ship Foo.  This in turn would seem to go against our 'don't use invented prefixes' guideline, which is why we have ARA Patagonia (B-1) (i.e. 'Armada de la República Argentina') - and not a translation to something like ANS Patagonia (i.e. Argentinian Navy Ship). If this is the case and the 'ENS' is a translation and not the actual prefix used, I think we should use EML Admiral Cowan (M313) instead of ENS Admiral Cowan (M313). So:
*Is EML the actual prefix?
*If so, should the Estonian ship articles be renamed?
ttfn, Benea (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look-see, and as far as I can tell, that's how the Estonian Navy translates it.  I clicked the little UK-flag, and the ship prefix seems to have become "ENS."  See, for example, http://www.mil.ee/index_eng.php?s=merevagi. HausTalk 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I'd noticed that, which is why this is not quite a clear cut case.  It makes me suspicious that the Estonian Navy are, along with helpfully interpreting their site for English readers, have also interpreted their ship prefix.  The Estonian Navy is called the 'Merevagi', but in the English version of the website, it is simply 'Estonian Navy'.  Similarly it seems they would prefix their ships EML, but when called upon to describe them for English readers they use ENS. My question is whether we use the Estonian prefix or the English translation of it.  We have precedents both ways, such as using 'ARA' - 'Armada de la República Argentina' instead of 'ANS' - 'Argentinian Navy Ship'; but also using 'HNoMS' - 'His Norwegian Majesty's Ship' instead of 'KNM' - 'Kongelig Norske Marine'. I'm just wondering which way we should go on this particular example. Benea (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: They have a prefix in
their official language site (and an English translation counts as little known) so use that, or take the "Estonian frigate XXXX" route. I favour a move and let the redirect pick up any confusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand the Estonian wikipedia uses HMS for Illustrious and not an Estonian translation. I don't think we should be creating our own abbreviations.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well both ways ENS or EML is fine with me cos it aint the most important thing-detail about the Estonian Navy ships ;). Karabinier (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems settled then.  Another example I thought of was ships like SMS Emden (1906), where SMS stands for the German 'Seiner Majestät Schiff' - which would translate as 'His Majesty's Ship'.  But rather than using HMS Emden, we retain the untranslated version of the prefix.  I'll move them to "EML Foo" when I've a bit more time, unless anyone else wants to get started before me. Benea (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian Navy ships - EML or ENS? 

message: I started to notice that information given in the NVR can often conflict with reports from the media. For example, a newspaper article says USS Shipname was commissioned on this date when in reality the commissioning ceremony was held that day. The NVR relies only on US Navy notification of ship events and doesn't rely on media reports. A good example of this would be the JFK which had a decommissioning ceremony on March 23rd 2007 but the official US Navy date for decommissioning was actually August 1 2007. And I see variances like this in a whole lot of ship articles. The basic premise is to determine ceremonial over official dates and I think our goal should be to use official dates rather than ceremonial dates. --Brad (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Brad. It's nice to know to look for such a difference. I would think that official dates would be the most appropriate date for infoboxes, but both dates, if known, would be appropriate to include in article text. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; in other words we shouldn't be running to update an infobox based on a media report of a ceremony since it won't be the official date of the event. I've also seen the opposite happen as well, where a ship was commissioned and the ceremony was held weeks later. --Brad (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVR data vs Media info 

message: needs to be moved to USNS Bowditch T-AGS-62 which is currently a redirect. Admin please? TIA. --Brad (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You meant with parentheses, right? That was where the redirect was, so that's where I moved it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, yes! Silly me. --Brad (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Should be all taken care of. You just wanted the dash added in the disambiguator, right? I think you could actually move them yourself, it didn't prompt me to delete the redirect first. No worries though. Parsecboy (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. I hadn't tried to move them as I thought there was some admin only thing regarding edit histories. Will know next time. --Brad (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only history is the creation of the redirect then the software will allow you to move over the redirect. If there is more than one edit, then you need an admin to delete it. Woody (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: How about something like this: :Template:Pathfinder class survey ship? Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Thanks. --Brad (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, no problem. Parsecboy (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move over redirect 

message: I've been updating the article pages for the United States Navy cruiser classes with infoboxes and I need know if I'm getting them in the correct order (preceded by and succeeded by). I've stopped at New Orleans class cruiser (1931) due to the Portland class cruiser articles  statement that the New Orleans class superseded the Portland class while the information I've found states the reverse.Shinerunner (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, the Portlands were essentially modified Northamptons, while the New Orleans were a different design. However, they were built at the same time, and had intermixed hull numbers (i.e., New Orleans was 32, Portland was 33, Astoria was 34, and Indianapolis was 35). I would tend to agree that the New Orleans class were the subsequent class. Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruiser classes 

message: Hi there. I just created Koninklijke Paketvaart-Maatschappij. It's very much stub. I'm not sure if this is of any interest to the Ships project. If so, do you stuff as I most probably won't be able to work on it in a hurry. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  instead of Koninklijke paketvaart mattaschappij. can we just call it KPM?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koninklijke Paketvaart-Maatschappij 

message: Montana class battleship is up for Featured Article here.  --Brad (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montana class battleship up for FA 

message: Aircraft carrier has been identified as a GA-class article in need of major improvements during a recent GA sweep. Anyone interested in help the article stay at GA class can check out the list of needed improvements at the bottom of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention 

message: I think someone here should nominate the Iowa class for a Wikipedia:Featured topics. The only thing that needs to be done is to raise the  to good or featured status. Alaskan assassin (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I claim dibs on Iowas FA rewrite!!! :-) No offense to the others (both SHIPS and MILHIST), but I would like handle this one because it has been on my todo list since before Featured Topics were brought to my attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I think USS Iowa turret explosion would also belong in the FT. That needs to be raised up as well. -MBK004 07:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if I recall correctly  claimed dibs on that article. It's on his to do list. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa class 

message: should be moved to USNS GYSGT Fred W. Stockham (T-AK-3017) but that title is prevented from being created. Can someone look into this? --Brad (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the page; I'm not sure why it was telling you it was prevented from moving, because there wasn't a redirect or a salted redlink. Probably just a bug in the system. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked for reasons why it wouldn't move either but found none. I was getting a message in big red letters that it was being prevented from creation. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USNS Stockham 

message: While working on Rear Admiral Uriel Sebree's article, I stumbled across a story regarding a sunken lightvessel off Nantucket that I have included, but I am uncertain how to name the ship in the article. Contemporary sources just called it "Lightship No. 58". A Google search seems to indicate that its real name was "Nantucket Lightship LV58". Fine, I can use either and I suspect that the latter is more correct. BUT, two questions: Should the name be in italics: Lightship No. 58, or not? Or maybe Nantucket Lightship LV58? Is there a standard for naming these vessels already on Wikipedia which I should follow? JRP (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Current practice, as seen at :Category:Lightships seems to favour the format 'Lightship foo'.  There is a general article about Nantucket Lightships at Lightship Nantucket, and an article about a specific one at Nantucket (lightship) (which someone has proposed be merged into Lightship Nantucket).  I'd suggest either writing your sunken lightship as a section at Lightship Nantucket, particularly if you don't have much information on her; or if you prefer to have it as a standalone article, perhaps Lightship Nantucket LV58, to distinguish it from the ship described at Nantucket (lightship), but to keep with existing precedent on titling lightship articles.  If you were referring to her in an article, the LV58 is the bit you'd probably italicise, hence "the Nantucket lightship LV58..." or similar. (i.e. the same way we would say "the German battleship Bismarck...".  I'm open to second opinions though. Benea (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: would you really put the LV in italics? ClemMcGann (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fine line, but yes I would.  The 'name' of the ship seems to be 'LV58', the 'Lightship Nantucket' appears to be the descriptor.  Unterseeboot 1 is the name of a submarine, we render the abbreviated version as U-1. Similarly 'Japanese submarine I-1' tends to be Japanese submarine I-1 or just I-1. Benea (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Ummm, Weren't we using USLHT for ships that served with the United States Lighthouse Service? At least I've seen one or two articles using that prefix but maybe I'm confusing a Lighthouse Tender from a Lightvessel? --Brad (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot thickens.  I'm not sure how things work on that side of the Atlantic, but in the UK Trinity House takes on the role of maintaining lightvessels (as they are usually called here).  Trinity House tenders bear the prefix THV, but the lightvessels themselves do not appear to.  :Category:Lighthouse tenders of the United States has half a dozen ships prefixed with USLHT, but that prefix would not be appropriate in this instance as these are lightships not tenders. Benea (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The DANFS article for this ship is here. It seems this ship had more service with the Lighthouse Service than it did with the Navy. I would go with USLHT Azalea (1891) and then redirect USS Azalea (1891) to it. --Brad (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightship naming 

message: (run by ) is changing the parameter "knot" to "kn" in template . As this affects a large number of ship articles, I thought I'd bring it to attention here. There is a discussion started here requesting that it stop. My personal opinion is that it changes an easily identifiable unit to a more obscure abbreviation. Also, the edits are probably clogging up everyone's watchlists with insignificant changes as they are mine. Any comments or opinions welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot changes to {{tl|convert}} 

message: The issue of lists/categories of ships by navy/country has been raised again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Category question. Involved editors may wish to comment. Benea (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships by navy vs ships by country 

message: AVR 661 is a "structure" at Calumet Harbor in the South Deering neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois, that is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.  A "structure", in NRHP-speak, could be a ship.  But i don't find AVR as a current naval ship prefix.  What could this be?
I will request a copy of the NRHP registration documents by postal mail, but it would help to know sooner to support a current DYK about List of RHPs in Chicago. doncram (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the DANFS abbreviations list AVR can stand for "aircraft rescue vessel". Don't know if that's what this is or not, though — Bellhalla (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  We have now found some photos and mention of AVR boats as 63 foot ships similar to PT-boats, used for rescuing aircraft crew from downed planes.  (Google searching on "avr pt boat" gets useful hits.) AVR boats were used in WWII and also in Korean War, according to some links and notes now showing in stub article AVR 661.  Many were later used by Sea Scouts for training.    This has killed my intended DYK phrase, essentially that the German Unterseeboot 505 was (i thought) the only ship listed on the National Register in Chicago, out of 296 entries, because i can't document that this AVR 661 is no longer there.  Odd that Chicago, a major port and major city, has hardly any ships on NRHP and no museum ships besides the U-boat, as about 5% of all National Historic Landmarks are ships.  Odd also that there seems to be no mention of AVRs as a class of ship / boat in wikipedia, too. doncram (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVR 661 

message: The peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reposted from Milhist talk --Brad (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Wisconsin (BB-64)]] now open 

message: posted this—worthy of mention here—at WP:MILHIST:
:The Times, probably the most famous British newspaper, currently has 200 years of archives available gratis on their website. I believe this is only for a short period, until they start charging. I've been trying a few subjects so far and the search function and OCR is quite effective. Well worth a look for anyone who needs contemporary sources, or an obituary for a biography.
In my brief peeks, it does work well, though you have to register to access anything. It does include advertisements published in the newspaper in searches. You can filter by type of content, news, ads, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of ''The Times'' free… for now 

message: Could someone take a look at these edits to USS Alabama (BB-60)? I have to run out for a bit, but the edits need some followup: they should be compared to the ship's current page at DANFS (which is failing to load for me at the moment), properly cited to the same, and cleaned up a bit to remove conversation. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: USNI Naval History Magazine June 2004 Volume 18, Number 3 TOC lists an article titled To Alabama, Very Well Done By Master Chief Alvin J. Spinner, U.S. Navy (Retired). My problem with the material is that the USNI presents the material as "A crewman on the battleship Alabama during the June 1944 "Marianas Turkey Shoot" presents evidence that the ship has not received her due." They say evidence, not facts... The edited version is not available to non-members, but it seems like they are presenting it as anecdotal rather than as proven facts. It may very well be true, but I'm not sure angelfire should be used as a reliable source. It would be nice to see how the USNI article presents or prefaces the material. Everyone has a sea story about how their ship saved the day, I imagine a 60 year old sea story could overplay the role of a ship in past events. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree about that source - but the anon said much of this was included in an updated DANFS entry for Alabama. I couldn't get the page to load earlier, but now I do see that information at DANFS here. I see someone cleaned up the article a bit; I'll make it clearer that angelfire is not the source. Maralia (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an USNI member, I looked at the article. Here's what they said, " Master Chief Spinner has been working tirelessly for years to gain the crew and officers of the Alabama the credit he says they deserve. For the sake of brevity, we have not reproduced all of his documentation here. He can back up each of his claims." Jinian (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance please