Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 11

message: Hi all, the A-Class review for SMS Von der Tann is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was promoted on 20 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Class review for [[SMS Von der Tann]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was promoted on 22 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Class review for SS ''Panaman'' now open 

message: Does anyone have free access to The Times archive? It recently switched to a pay site after a long (and wonderful) free preview period. I'm interested in two articles that mention the ship  which was scuttled off the UK in August September 1945 with chemical weapons aboard. Searching for "Empire Simba" (in quotes) at the archive brings up two articles: one from 7 September 1945, and one from 7 September 1970 (which seems to be in a "25 years ago today" type feature). I'm interested in details of Empire Simbas cargo, if available, like types of weapons, quantity, chemicals, etc. Also, were there others scuttled under similar circumstances? If the articles are short, an e-mailed screenshot would be fantastic, otherwise a summary (plus page number!) will be more than sufficient. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do and can email you both. Can you email me with your email address please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And replied to :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind doing some for me to fill out  ? If The Times goes back to 1780 then likely there could be a lot of articles to look up. I could use some opposing POV's from the other side of the pond. --Brad (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone have access to ''The Times'' archive? 

message: I've done some major work to the content and images of this article and would like to get a review and suggestions for further expansion/improvements. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rated the article as a B-class as it's nicely done. If you want a formal peer review you can request one @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review. A bit more polishing and it should go GA. --Brad (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. I've worked on it some more and nominated it for a Good Article review. Shinerunner (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The article has passed and is now listed as a Good Article! Shinerunner (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Edward M. Cotter (fireboat)]] 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was promoted on 25 September 2008. Thanks to all editors who participated. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Class review for USS ''West Bridge'' (ID-2888) now open 

message: Anyone have a clue as to why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Current_status is not updating while the scale on our main project page is? --Brad (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be fine now. Maybe it was fixed with PFM. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality assessment chart not updating ? 

message: Hello all... 
An image used in the Boat building article, specifically :Image:Boatconstruction.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue.  The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive.  It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard.  As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article.  If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw this one on there in its place: :Image:Schappledore3.jpg. The article could use more images, though, so the picture-adding needn't end there. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needs replacement 

message: In response to the discussion in Archive 10 (section 79)
on putting U boat designations in italics
I’ve had a look at about a dozen books from the library for this; 
*7 use italics (U-47)
*5 don’t (U-47)
*No-one uses U- 47
*One (Kemp) uses non-italic for headings (U-47) but italics in the text (U-47), echoing the suggestion for pages here. 
I hope that is of use. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks like we should use italics when writing the name of a U-boat in the U-nn style. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-boats in italics?, again 

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

message: There have been some updates made to Template:WikiProject Ships today. Some improvements that had been discussed on the template's talk page should now be functioning.
* When the template is placed on a talk page in the Category, Image, or Template namespaces, it should auto-assess to the proper class.
* Even though B-Class checklist parameter names could be abbreviated in the template before (b1, B1, B-1, b-1 instead of having to type B-Class-1, for example), the template will now assess as the proper class regardless of the parameter style. (Previously, it would only return a B-Class if the parameters were spelled out in full, B-Class-1=yes, etc.)
* On a related note, when B-Class-3, B-Class-4, and B-Class-5 are set to "yes", the template will assess as C-Class regardless of whether B-Class-1 and B-Class-2 are set to "yes", "no" or undefined, but if all five are "yes", it will, of course, assess as B-Class.
* When using either the nested or small parameters, the template will now properly accept variations on "yes", like "y", "Y", etc.
— Bellhalla (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting that fixed when so many others had failed. --Brad (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Template:WikiProject Ships 

message: Does anybody have good statistics or a good reference for the current number of maval vessels worldwide?  These numbers, from the ship article, look like they could have come from Janes Fighting Ships, but I'm having a bear of a time trying to find a reference for them.
In 2002, there were 1,240 warships operating in the world, not counting small vessels such as patrol boats.  The United States accounted for 3 million tons worth of these vessels, Russia 1.35 million tons, the United Kingdom 504,660 tons and China 402,830 tons. 
By comparison, page 16 of this document gives some similar-ish numbers for 2004/2005.
Thanks,HausTalk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warship statistics: tonnage and/or number 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The A-Class review for SS Iowan is still open and could benefit from additional reviewers. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This review closed as promoted. Thanks to all the reviewers who took the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Class review for SS ''Iowan'' now open 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The A-Class review for MS West Honaker is still open and could benefit from additional reviewers. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{MS|West Honaker}} now open 

message: I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed here and here), viz:
*"Unterseeboot..." effectively loses the page,
*Unterseeboot is a foreign term (the English word is "submarine", or "U-Boat"),
*Other submarine  pages use, for example “Italian submarine...” or "French Submarine...",
*And other german warships use the same format, eg “German battleship…”.
The discussion is HERE. (Posted also at WT:MILHIST as suggested). Xyl 54 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-boat designations (notification) 

message: First off, apologies if this has already been discussed—I could  no find anything related to this topic by a quick search.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment has a clear guideline on how to assess articles on ship types, ship classes, individual ships, and ships that were never completed. However, it does not have a guideline on how to assess ship operators (navies and shipping companies). At the moment the assessment of such articles range between low and high, so a common guideline for this would be highly needed. If a concensus for such has been reached before then the rest of my post can be more-or-less ignored and theinformation should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment. But if not, I'd like to use this chance to start a discussion on the topic:
In my opinion ship operators should be rated higher than individual ships, following this rationale from the Assessment page: "[the assessment is an] attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic". At least in the case of commercial ships, a person is far more likely to be looking for information on a shipping company (say Carnival Cruise Line) than any of their individual ships. A person actually interested in the individual ships (such as most of us) might look up an individual ship, but a casual visitor looking for information, for instance looking up on different cruise options (don't snicker, I've used wiki for this), is far more likely to look up the company page. Additionally an article on a navy or shipping company covers several ships (often several ship classes)—by the logic that an article on a ship class is more important than one on an individual ship, an article on a ship operator should also be more important than an article on an individual ship.
Thoughts? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been discussed somewhere in the past though I can't find the thread just now. The thoughts were that wp:ships is a project that concentrates on individual ships and ship classes. An article about a cruise line is not exactly an article about a ship or class of ship but it is ship related. Same thing with a US Navy article or something similar. Ship related articles were given the Low importance rating. There are other wikiprojects an article about a cruise line company may fall under. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's generally my thinking as well; I typically give ship-related articles (i.e., ferry companies, shipyards, navies, etc.) low-importance ratings, as they would be more important to projects like WP:MARITIME, Maritime Trades, or the like. I would agree that our primary focus should be on individual ships and ship classes. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Carnival Cruise Line would be a high-importance Maritime Trades article, while a topic like Royal Australian Navy would likely be a high-importance WP:MARITIME article.  Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised to see Carnival Cruise Line with a  WP:SHIPS tag on it, but I would be surprised to see Royal Australian Navy with a WP:SHIPS tag.  Cheers. HausTalk 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I had quite forgotten about the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades as a project covering articles on shipping companies. I withdraw my original proposal, then. Since we're in agreement, I presume no-one would mind if I edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment to include a note that shipping companies (an comparable articles not directly dealing with ships) should should be rated low? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for updating the page. There are a lot of guidelines that are out of date etc. --Brad (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline/concensus needed for importance assessment on ship operators? 

message: I want to know if I'm the only one having a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles. The page is showing the last article as being from Sept 30 but if you go to User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog the article listing there seems to be updating daily as the new article page should be. I've dumped the cache on my browser but it hasn't made any difference. --Brad (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lastest I'm seeing is from 05:53, 2 October. Refreshing the cache hasn't worked for me either. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing the top one is "started at 08:05, 4 October 2008", but there is an odd /noinclude html code in the first line of it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I'm updated to that point as well, with the same /noinclude bit. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm showing all is updated now too. Since I'm on the page everyday I've noticed that four days pass before the page updates. If you could look again on Monday or Tuesday we can compare again. --Brad (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably my fault that it worked. It might be a combination of browser cache and server cache. I saw the page as updated, but I had never viewed it before, so it wasn't in my cache. After I posted here, I went back and did a null edit to see if the noinclude syntax stayed in there, then you two posted that it was fixed. It was probably the null edit that updated the page date/time stamp or something to that effect. A few minutes ago, I put an opening noinclude into the bot's page and it didn't update the other page until I did another null edit. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that did the trick but that strange noinclude tag has been there ever since I can remember. The bot owner never answered me as to what might be wrong. I notice that some pages on WP have a purge option; any idea on how that is arranged? --Brad (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:Purge, I added a  to it. I think the null edit does the same thing. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. We'll see what happens from here. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article feed 

message: An article within the scope of the project, Japanese minelayer Itsukushima, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may wish to comment at the discussion here. Benea (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also nominated is a sister article, Japanese minelayer Okinoshima, under discussion here. Benea (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like both were snowball "keep"s. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article nominated for deletion 

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

message: IM backANOMALY-117 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok and you were expecting a parade or what? --Brad (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:ANOMALY-117|ANOMALY-117]] ([[User talk:ANOMALY-117|talk]]) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 

message: I found these articles about crane ships that are part of the United States Navy ready reserve. Should the prefix USNS or USS be used instead of SS? Shinerunner (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The MSC uses SS for all four.  Kablammo (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Names 

message: The FAC for SMS Von der Tann is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: was promoted to featured article status on 7 October. Congratulations to Parsecboy and others who worked on the article! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC for SMS ''Von der Tann'' now open 

message: - either the archive issued on CD a few years ago or the publication itself in a reference library.
I'm looking for a copy of an article printed in the 1930s.
Thanks. --Petecarney (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, worldcat.org can show you what libraries nearest you have copies at this link. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried here? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have access to old issues of the journal Mariner's Mirror? 

message: There is a proposal to move :List of U-boats to :List of German U-boats All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Many of the articles that are about US Coast Guard vessels include the pronoun "she" when referring to the vessel throughout the article.  According to the US Coast Guard at this website:  http://www.uscg.mil/mag/style.asp , this is considered improper.  Coast Guard vessels should be referred to by their name or by the pronoun "it".  Interestingly, the US Navy still finds the pronoun "she" as being proper.  I would propose that we go through all of the US Coast Guard vessel pages and edit them to edit out the pronoun "she".  Thoughts?  Pmarkham (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Massively changing every article is not how things are done. The current MOS states that she/her is acceptable and should not be changed unless there is a substantial reason to do so. I do not see a reason sufficient to satisfy the MOS to change just because the organization doesn't like us referring to ships in those pronouns. Especially since we use DANFS which uses the she/her pronouns. -MBK004 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, that style guide you've linked to is for submitting stories to an editorial magazine. With respects, that doesn't state how to present an encyclopedic article. -MBK004 21:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The US coastguard has a style guide for articles under their remit, wikipedia has one for ones under its remit. We are not obliged to follow their style guide, just as they are not obliged to follow ours. Wikipedia covers a far wider range of ships, and we have a standardised guide to cover all of them, including US coastguard ones. Benea (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Benea said, we're no more obliged to follow their guidelines than they are obliged to follow ours.  Especially seeing as they don't seem consistent in following it in some of their own publications.  See here, here, here, and here for just a few samples that I found.  Granted, their guideline may be a relatively new change; but I don't see a substantial reason from that to change our use of pronouns on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that we're not obliged to do it, but as a measure of respect to the Coast Guard, it seemed like a prudent thing to do since the style guide of an official US Coast Guard publication says that it is proper.  Barek, thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies to that style on some Coast Guard press releases.  I hadn't seen those before and it is difficult to tell when the current style guide was adopted, so I don't know if those pages were published before or after that style guide was published.  Since there doesn't seem to be any consensus to my suggestion, I'll leave it alone.  Thanks for the feedback.  Pmarkham (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Coast Guard vessels and the pronoun "she" 

message: The A-Class review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! --Brad (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[USS Constitution]] now open 

message: User:Middim13, who has been a previous subject of discussion over POV pushing and edit warring on subjects such as Electric Boat and Arthur Leopold Busch, has returned, this time to the Royal Navy article, and related subjects such History of the Royal Navy. I got suspicious when edit summaries such as 'Much of these transactions were done in secrecy so the information about this subject is not altogether clear. Distorted events taking place at Isaac Rice's Electric Boat Company.' and 'Date keel was laid. This information is true, accurrate, correct and un-biased. The truth will not "always be Kosher" or what they want us to believe! Carry on people of integrity.' began to appear. First of all he's copied and pasted it onto both the above articles, where at most it would seem to warrant an appearance on the 'History' article. But despite claiming to me that it is all 100% factual, he has not provided sources. WP:VER does not seem to have sunk in.  More over he declares his intention to edit war until his version is accepted. I wonder if those more experienced and knowledgeable about US submarine history could take a look. Benea (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dealt with this user before over the past  two years on the GD and related pages. He seems to sincerely believe that Electric Boat/General Dynamics have suppressed the history of Arthur Leopold Busch, but as you've said, he never provide any relaiable sources for any of the claims he makes, other than to assure us it's true. He left a mountain of material on my talk pages if anyone wishes to sort though it (it is in the "circular" archives now, but I can point you to the correct diffs). I was told by another editor (I don't recall who) when I first ran into the user (he was using multiple IPs then) that Middim was related to Busch, who was propably his great uncle. I've never seen Middim admit this, as he probably knows it would be a COI on his part. I don't know what the solution is, other than humoring him, and then cleaning up his uncited claims after he stops editing for awhile. Good luck! - BillCJ (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I know that TomTheHand had some dealings with Middim13 before and he/she continues to post on Tom's talk page even though Tom has not been active on WP lately. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just given Middim13 an ONLY WARNING with regards to his current editing. I will not hesitate to block if this happens again. -MBK004 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just responded to me stating that we are "misguided and biased" with regards to his edits. I responded that if continued he would gain a long-term block since he's exhausted our patience with not complying with our requests to properly cite his edits to reliable sources. -MBK004 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess the urge was too much. He edited ship articles today. I've left my last warning on his talk page. I'm not sure a topic ban would do any good, but if the rest of you think so, please speak up before my trigger finger gets itchy on the indef block button. -MBK004 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Navy edits 

message: I have opened a discussion at ANI proposing a topic or community ban. Please see WP:ANI##Topic_or_community_ban_needed. -MBK004 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI 

message: I've noticed some inconsistencies in whether or not decommissioned vessels are listed on pages that list vessels of specific classes or types.  For example, on the USCG Seagoing Buoy Tender page we list the currently commissioned vessels as well as the vessels of that type that have been decommissioned.  In contrast, on the USCG medium endurance cutter page, a previous edit removed all of the vessels of that type that are now decommissioned and left only the commissioned vessels.  What is your opinion?  Should the vessel type pages include decommission vessels or not?  My opinion is that they should include both commissioned and decommissioned vessels -- but I'm also the new guy here!  Thanks!  Pmarkham (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First thing to consider is that most of the USCG articles are suffering badly and are in need of attention. USCG Seagoing Buoy Tender should actually be renamed United States Coast Guard seagoing bouy tender and an article with that sort of title usually means that the content focuses on seagoing bouy tenders and what they do and their history etc. The list of vessels there is far too large for that article and should be broken into List of seagoing bouy tenders of the United States Coast Guard. With the list you can place all the known ships applicable to the title regardless of status. The current style and layout of that article seems to have been ripped from the CG website. Most ship articles don't class by size but rather class name. --Brad (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should decommissioned ships be removed from a page that lists vessel types? 

message: A proposal to merge US Brig Niagara (museum ship) into USS Niagara (1813) is under discussion here. A background in philosophy would be an advantage. :) Benea (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: I want to make a task force project that covers all areas about the RMS Titanic called, "WikiProject: RMS Titanic Task Force". Toonami Reactor (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it would have been better if you had waited and saw if there was sufficient interest to form such a task force. I'm not trying to be mean but I think this may end up at MfD soon. -MBK004 01:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. The current state of the Titanic article suggests that there isn't the interest to really tackle this at the moment. If you feel you want to overhaul the article, you are more than welcome, but that doesn't require a specific taskforce. Currently people are just dipping in and out of the article as things occur to them, and there doesn't seem to be the need to gather people together for a concerted discussion about changes, the talkpage seems to be capably handling this. And despite being an important topic, it's still a very narrow subject for a task force really. Benea (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: A task force for Titanic related articles is probably a good idea but a lot of Titanic related articles don't fit into the scope of this project such as biography articles. A Titanic WikiProject would be the solution but there are likely not enough articles in total to warrant starting a new Project. Sort of stuck in between these issues. So maybe you could run this task force from a subsection of your user page? --Brad (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Being picky about the page title it should probably be User:Toonami Reactor/RMS Titanic task force however, I recall that the shipwrecks project originally started out on a users sub-page and then expanded from there. You may want to count up all the Titanic related articles that already exist and think about how many more there might be in the future. Anyway, your user space is more appropriate right now and you can avoid the deletionists. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Titanic Task Force 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{SS|Mauna Loa}} now open 

message: The A-Class review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for {{SS|Black Osprey}} now open 

message: In updating these articles to the current infobox and I need some help with the eariler submarine classes. For example, I've found that there is an article for V-boat submarines that has it's own ship class infobox while the Cachalot class submarine (part of the V class submarines) also has a ship class infobox. The same type of problem exists with the United States H class submarine article and Holland 602 type submarine aritcle. I'm  trying to link them with preceded by and succeded by in the infoboxes and I want to get the order and article links correct. Shinerunner (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Navy submarine classes 

message: I wonder if an admin could move a couple of pages, specifically:
*HMS Olympus > HMS Olympus (S12)
*HMS Osiris > HMS Osiris (S13)
As they're currently sitting on titles that should be ship list pages, but the history in the redirects prevent a normal move. Ta muchly, ttfn, Benea (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, regards. Woody (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I even had time to draw breath! Benea (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moves 

message: The A-Class review for Alaska class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Alaska class battlecruiser]] now open 

message: On our Main Page there is a list of admins who are part of this project but when I compare them to the list of active members, many are not listed as such. Some admins on that list I've never even seen post here on the talk page. Maybe this should be clarified? --Brad (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do it more in the way that Milhist do it, where admins list themselves as available to help rather than presuming it. Woody (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes more sense to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project members who are Wikipedia Administrators 

message: I have noticed that the japanese Shimushu, Etoforu and Mikuru classes are named in their respective articles as "coastal defense ship". this is an error as those ships were escort vessels similar in role to the allied escort destroyers or frigates (they protected convoys etc). the Japanese called them Kaibokan which i believe means something like sea protection vessels. i therefore suggest renaming the following articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimushu_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etorofu_class_coastal_defense_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikura_class_coastal_defense_ship
i would do it myself but i'm new on wiki and i have no idea how to do it. Loosmark (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the remaining question is what name are you proposing the articles be moved to? --Brad (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in my opionion the best would be for example "Etorofu class escort". acceptable is also "Etorofu class kaibokan" or even "Etorofu class frigate". (i've seen all 3 versions in different publications) Loosmark (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  japanese escort vessels of WW2 

message: Moved from Reference Desk
While writing Central Waterfront, Seattle, Washington I had occasion to mention the Northland Steamship Company. We don't have an article. I don't know much about it. A quick web search doesn't even make clear whether there were one or two companies with this name. I suspect the one in the Alaska trade may have been unrelated to a company of the same name operating on the Great Lakes.
Does anyone know more about this? If so, could I prevail upon you to write at least a stub at Northland Steamship Company (or to disambiguate and write two stubs if they are two different companies)? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I found another one: a 1916 shipping company on the New York- Archangel route. And a modern Auckland brewpub, apparently. Rmhermen (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You might want to drop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships with your request.  Saintrain (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The company involved in the 1916 New York- Archangel route was a holding company for one ship belonging to Charles W. Morse and (briefly) operated the ship . It apparently had nothing to do with the Seattle-based company. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northland Steamship Company 

message: Zumwalt class destroyer was in a bit of a mess - people had added political stuff in four different sections, and the old diff just felt a bit disjointed. I've reordered it, and updated the article with some of the recent events, the debate about ABM capability and so on. And I've given it a bit of a clean, converting refs to  templates and so on. It can't be that far off GA now, it just needs some different eyeballs on it and a bit of polishing - references for a few of the specs, a bit of tightening of the text, that sort of thing. It would be a good one to GA, since it's a ship that's in the news at the moment. Enjoy.... 82.3.242.144 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also done a complete rewrite of CG(X) - it badly needed it.  I got a bit bored towards the end, but it's got GA potential - considering that we know almost nothing about the ship at the moment! We don't even know if it will be one class or two, we should know more in the next few weeks. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're so interested in these articles, why don't you register an account and nominate them for GA yourself instead of suggesting someone else do it? -MBK004 04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just felt that I'd taken them about as far as one person could, they were at the stage where they needed fresh eyes on them. Wiki-making is meant to be a collaborative activity after all, I'm not sure it's that healthy to have a single viewpoint. And as it happens, I'm not that interested in them to be honest, I was looking for some info on Zumwalt and it was in such a mess I felt I had to try and do a bit of sorting out. I was surprised they were in such a bad state to be honest, given how newsworthy they are, but I figured that more people here than usual might be interested in them. Appears not. ;-/ <shrug> 82.3.242.144 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I've also done a complete rewrite of SC-21 (United States) - it's currently up for DYK (26th) and must be close to GA if anyone fancies taking a look. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zumwalt class destroyer]] for GA? 

message: I've created lists of all US and UK-related ship articles so anyone can utilize the 'related changes' function to monitor changes to US and UK ship articles. I would've liked to have a single list for all ship articles, but there are far too many for that to be feasible. If there is interest in lists for other subsets of ship articles, let me know. You can access the new recent changes links at:
*Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles US 
*Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles UK 
Hopefully these lists will make it easier to watch 'our' articles for vandalism. Since they use a special pages function, you can't add them to your watchlist, so you might want to bookmark them or save a link to them on your userpage. It would be great if everyone would get in the habit of checking the recent changes links in addition to their own watchlists, so we can cast a broader net for vandalism.
I have updated  to include the new recent changes links. Now that we have the new cleanup listing, the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tasks and  are largely obsolete, so I have reorganized the "Things you can do" section of the sidebar template, as well. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very nice! Thanks for making the changes. Any chance we could get our assessment instructions up to date? I tried editing them a couple months ago but they seem to be in templates that confuse me to no end. --Brad (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The assessments page does need some cleaup; I started working on a draft last night. Maralia (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a conversation some months ago about what to look for when assessing articles: here. I think that including those ideas on the revised assessment guidelines would be a good idea. --Brad (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Those should come in handy.  Would it be possible to create something comparable for the ships listed in :Category:Cruise ships? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded on that. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll make it tonight. Maralia (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles cruiseships. Maralia (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I've added it to my 'p-interaction' toolbar portlet, and it works great. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but it's not an original idea, really—I saw a similar list for another project. Quite a few projects used to have these sorts of lists maintained by a bot, but the bot and its owner have been inactive for a year. I figured working off static article lists would be better than nothing, so I used AWB to make article lists by recursing through categories. All there is to it is (1) make a page that lists all articles you want to monitor, and (2) use the special pages function Special:RecentChangesLinked/ to view related changes for that page. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to Maralia's comment: to simplify maintaining a list (for project that don't want that manual process), instead of creating a manual list, it does appear to work off of categories ... but the limitation of that method is that it won't look into sub-categories. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Recent changes; Sidebar update 

message: The peer review for Tribal class destroyer (1936) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Tribal class destroyer (1936)]] now open 

message: I wasn't sure where to categorize this into, currently it just has Category:Ships.  I didn't see a barks subcat in Ships by type....Skookum1 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find it (and other types) in :Category:Sailing ships. I've added :Category:Barques to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a British ship - should I (or you?) re-dab it to Columbia (barque).  On List of ships in British Columbia I'd originally redlinked it as Columbia (HBC).....Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sailing vessels aren't really my area of expertise, and the Barque article isn't really clear about what spelling was used (at least to me, it seems both were used by the British). Does the source you have in the article use one over the other? It does seem a bit odd that the article is at (bark), and yet the first sentence uses "barque". Are there other sources that mention the ship? Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Columbia (bark)|''Columbia'' (bark)]] - what cat? 

message: I've been doing a little work on the footer template . Can anyone with a reference verify what the correct pennant number for the modified Flower-class corvette HMS Candytuft was? (This is a different ship than , an unmodified Flower-class corvette.) The second Candytuft was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy as . Uboat.net, usually pretty reliable, lists Candytuft with the pennant number K484, but Long Branch with K487. Most of the other Flower-class corvettes transferred between navies (except those to the U.S. Navy) seem to have kept the same pennant number. Is this a case of a source being wrong or did it have two differing pennant numbers? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there where someone brings up the perennial argument to drop pennant numbers ... ?  As much as I love my pennant numbers, their inconsistency does drive me a little batty.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's where someone brings up the perennial question "how long has it been since Kralizec actually posted at WP:SHIPS?" :) Maralia (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Embarrassingly, about two months.  Unfortunately for my edit count, you young whipper snappers keep solving things before I can get home from work and get my dial-up intarweb working.  Save some of the fun stuff for the rest of us!  I am afraid all I do anymore is block vandals (1466 of them to date).  --Kralizec! (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could point out that, except for today, Maralia hasn't been posting here much lately either. What's your excuse, too busy at FAC? As for the fun stuff, I'm pretty sure there are still articles that need assessing :-p Parsecboy (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I should stop complaining, `cause it looks like I did some edits last week to Captain class frigate after its peer-review was announced at WT:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force.  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have been focusing more on FAC this year, but I'm still busting ass on ship articles :)  No one responded to my plea for help with articles selected for the 0.7 release, so I spent weeks working on them by myself, until it got too overwhelming and I gave up. Now I have a stack of library books on ships begging for attention. (Sorry for derailing your thread, Bellhalla!) Maralia (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I looked in my stack of naval reference books but could not find anything either way.  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennant number for a British/Canadian Flower-class corvette 

message: The peer review for USS Nevada (BB-36) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 20:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Nevada (BB-36)]] now open 

message: There are various lists of ship launches and shipwrecks. I'm sure these are underpopulated though. Every ship should be linked from the list of the year it was launched, and all shipwrecks should be linked from the list for that year (a shipwreck doesn't necessarily mean a loss). There are also lists of ship decomissionings too.
These lists all follow the format "List of ship (event) in (year)". Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be any launching lists prior to 1862... there a certainly a massive number of ships from the 17th and 18th centuries, not to mention the rest of the 19th century that we know about - that's a lot of lists to create! Martocticvs (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A possibility for the earlier launches is to a list by decade rather than by year. List can always be split later if it gets too long. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The trouble I see with these lists are that few of them have any references. If we're compiling lists based on other articles within WP then it's original research. I had this problem with  in that some editors had been counting what active ships had sunk hostile targets and comparing them with the record of Constitution. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a ship has an article on Wikipedia, then that should be a sufficient reference for the list. Agree there is a problem with the more modern lists, and these should be subject to the same rules re refs as any other articles. See edit history of List of shipwrecks in 2008 to see proof that unreferenced entries have been removed from the list. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is one of those gray areas when it comes to references. I've always seen list articles as being presented as some sort of authoritative cross-reference much like our lists of US or Royal Navy ships. I can't think of a way to provide any solid references though. --Brad (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of ship launches and shipwrecks 

message: Just ran across the NASA recovery ship today.  Is it just me, or does this look like it should be a civilian version of the class or type articles we use with military ships?  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that article qualifies as a class type. I reassessed to High importance, needs infobox and it passed C-class. I wonder if it should be renamed? --Brad (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[:NASA recovery ship]] a class article? 

message: The articles Japanese cruiser Yodo and Japanese cruiser Mogami (1908), obviously, classify these two ships as cruisers.  But the Yodo class is classified by the IJN themselves as aviso, or dispatch vessel; lighter than cruisers.  I think these articles should be renamed appropriately but I realize that neither "aviso" nor "dispatch vessel" are classifications commonly used in English, so I'd like to ask for a suggestion.
Also, both of these vessels are prefixed with "IJN" at the beginning of the article.  IJN is of course a tag invented by Anglophone writers.  I wonder if there's been a consensus for the usage of this prefix in Wikipedia.  It seems that at the present some ships are prefixed IJN and some aren't. o (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the naming convention, we only use prefixes when the navies themselves used them, hence we have SMS Bayern, but not DKM Bismarck. As far as aviso is concerned, we do have an article on it: Aviso. However, I have seen the German avisos from the late 19th century referred to as light cruisers occasionally, so that might be an option if "aviso" isn't used. There is also the question of what sources call them, if there are any. I myself would lean towards "aviso", but that's just my opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wasn't the term light cruiser "invented" by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921? Loosmark (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less, but the type of warship wasn't new; both the Germans and British built dozens of light cruisers during the First World War (although the Germans officially called them "kleine kreuzer" or "small cruiser"). "Light cruiser" was a shortening of "light armored cruiser", as they were technically armored cruisers because they possessed an armored belt, but were much lighter than typical armored cruisers. This was the classification of the Town class, for example (initially rated as "Second class cruisers"). Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jane's Fighting Ships 1914 categorises Mogami and Yodo as "Gunboats".  Military Industries of Japan by Ushisaburo Kobayashi (1922), p. 127 describes them as "dispatch boats", and "looks like a large size torpedo-boat destroyer. Being intended for a dispatch boat, she was built with more consideration for her speed than for her arms." FWIW.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Conway's 1906-1922 has them simply as "Yodo class cruisers", and then in the text states that they were "essentially small cruisers, although rated as dispatch boats." Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the question is whether to use the original Japanese classification aviso/dispatch boat, or use the anglicised classification.  The Russian navy has a "cruiser" classification quite different from the English world, too.  How is this done there? o (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i just checked the technical data for these ships. displacement 1250 tons, main armament 2x4.7inch and 4x3inch. i'd say these were gunboats. Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IJN cruisers 

message: I've just come across this article: Princess Kaguya (cruise ship), the current AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship). The concept looks promising but I'm not sure if this article should be saved? -MBK004 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on a future cruise ship 

message: The peer review for  is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 12:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for {{RMS|Titanic}} now open 

message: There were two ships named Mahratta in service with the Brocklebank Line. One was launched in 1892 and the other in 1917. Both foundered on the Goodwin Sands 30 years apart, and within a mile of each other. I'm having trouble creating a meaningful article on the second Mahratta as I can't find much info apart from this, which I think may fail WP:RS. Can I use this source or are we going to be left with a very short stub article? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use the entry at the Miramar Ship Index (Main page). It's compiled by Rodger Haworth, who is a coauthor of the Starke/Schell Ship Registers. I currently have an article at WP:FAC in which I used it, and it seems to have been accepted as a reliable source (so far, at least). — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link doesn't give me anything I don't already know. The real detail of the history of the ship is in the link I gave originally. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez. Just trying to help with an RS... I'll go away and leave you to your search. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way but that link gave the barest detail on the ship. As the purpose of the website I found is history/research I'm going to use the info there. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not see if there is a copy of the Shipwreck Index of the British Isles Volume Two by Richard and Bridget Larn in a local library.  Even if the Mahratta II entry doesn't have any more than the web link, you will then have a reliable (but not online) source that confirms that your web link is reliable.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked my local library catalogue. All they have is the index to volumes 1 and 2. :( Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS ''Mahratta'' 

message: I'm pleased to announce that  was promoted to Featured status. Congratulations to Brad101 and everyone that pitched in to help with the article, and thank you to those who participated in the peer review, A-class review, and FAC.
TomStar81 and I have been in touch via email, and he pointed out that February 22 will be the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of the Great White Fleet's trip around the world. He had been planning to work on the article, with the goal of Today's featured article on the centennial. Are there a couple people out there willing to take this on, with my help? Maralia (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Constitution was a wild ride. At one point I was having dreams about how to improve the article. FAC went easier than I thought it would. I really expected it to get trounced; it was a nice surprise. As for this Tom situation, if he decided to leave then why is he trying to get others to pick up on the work he left behind? I don't really see the point in creating wikidrama by leaving in a huff and then trying to steer articles through others. Regardless, the GWF would be nice to have featured on the 100th anniversary but I see the article likely needs an entire overhaul and the list of books used had no page numbers referenced which means that all the refs have to be done over again. I've got my sights set on continuing to work on the six frigates and I've started work on  already. --Brad (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles come to FAC without going through other review processes first; all the prep work on Constitution—particularly the in-depth GA review and the peer review, and the referencing cleanup we did—really paid off with a smooth FAC. Not sure why you think Tom's trying to 'get others to pick up on the work he left behind'; it's not like Great White Fleet is his article, after all. He merely pointed out an important anniversary—a prime opportunity for a mainpage appearance—and suggested maybe someone would be interested in working on the article. Maralia (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd be willing to help tackle improvements to the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS ''Constitution'' is now FA; and a request from [[User:TomStar81]] 

message: These submarines are inconsistently named. Should they be under K-141, Kursk or RFS ? - Kittybrewster  ☎ 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFS prefix is mandated against in our guidelines. Following our usual formatting it should probably go 'Russian submarine xxx (pennant number)', so Russian submarine K-456 Vilyuchinsk should be 'Russian submarine Vilyuchinsk (K-456)'. Some surface ships are also incorrectly titled, for example RFS Moskva. Benea (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It got the current title after a discussion at Talk:Russian submarine K-141 Kursk#Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk and listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so I don't think it should be moved without prior discussion. There are currently also articles like Russian submarine Kursk explosion, Russian submarine AS-34, Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you ignored my discussion advice and moved it to a third title RFS Kursk K-141 which has 3 Google hits, all of them from Wikipedia mirrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense: SS New York, RMS Titanic, etc... - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Where is the requested moves discussion? - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion itself was not at requested moves. The discussion at Talk:Russian submarine K-141 Kursk#Move to Russian submarine K-141 Kursk was just linked from there for 5 days where nobody opposed.. Kittybrewster has now started a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Category:Russian Navy submarines. "SS New York" has 25000 Google hits and "RMS Titanic" has 375000 so I don't think that is a fair comparison to 3 hits in Wikipedia mirrors for "RFS Kursk K-141". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The English Wikipedia generally uses common English names. It is one of the most notable submarines in the world and has a huge number of mentions in English sources. kursk (submarine OR uboat) gets 69500 Google hits and 10100 Google News hits for all dates. The city Kursk is far from oceans so I guess a large part of the hits are on the submarine. It seems significant to me that out of tens of thousands of mentions, nobody else has apparently called it "RFS Kursk K-141". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Per naming conventions, the article should be at Russian submarine K-141 Kursk. Problem solved? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you get that, as opposed to ? Is there some sort of exception for Russian subs I'm not aware of? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh...I really have to use preview sometimes. I meant to type , but I was not thinking. =/ Sorry and cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: What about USS Trout (SS-202) ? Kittybrewster  ☎ 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Trout is named in accordance with the long-established consensus naming style. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case Kursk should be the same. Surely we should have consistency? Kittybrewster  ☎ 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I think it should be named, but I'm no expert on Russian submarines. That naming style seems to be supported by WP:NC-SHIPS#Military ships and follows what Benea suggested above. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Russian Navy submarines]] 

message: SS Titan (2012), an article concerning a proposed ship, has been nominated for deletion here. Interested editors may wish to comment. Benea (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And in a similar vein, MS America World City has been prodded, as a hoax, but probably fulfils the same criteria as being an unrealistic, unsupported proposal for 'world's largest, most luxurious ship'. Interestingly everyone wants Harland & Wolff to build their dream ships for them! Benea (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to that one, the editor's track record would give a good clue as to what should be done with the article. I passed over it for assessment because I'm sure it will be deleted. --Brad (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that one already existed under America World City, so I converted the new one to be a redirect.  I question the value of the original article as well ... but at least it has some third party coverage, so that one likely just barely passes the notability threshold. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on a future ship 

message: The peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at that, I wondered if there's a standard for capitalization of name translations. I'm split between not capitalizing, 'cause they're not proper nouns in Eng, & capitalizing, 'cause they're translations of names. Thoughts? Also, do change it to reflect whatever decision is arrived at (if any... ;D)  TREKphiler hit me ♠  06:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Japanese World War II destroyers]] now open 

message: This oil tanker was just hijacked off the coast of Somalia and so may be of interest to this project. Also there's a discussion on Talk:Sirius Star about whether or not the proper pronouns were neuter or feminine. Input from members of this project would be of assistance. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting fun fact: this article got just under 120,000 hits in 3 days. HausTalk 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MV Sirius Star]] 

message: The Ministry of War Transport owned many ships during World War II. These all had names prefixed Empire. I've discovered a list on them all online, and using that have started working on a list for Wikipedia. The basic info I have collated contains enough information to enable searches to obtain information to create articles on individual ships. I've put the Empire A— ships on a subpage. Anyone who would like to create individual ship articles from the list is welcome to do so. If you are creating an article on a particular ship, please wikilink the name so that it shows up red, and add an edit note to say who is working on the article. Once created, the link will then turn blue. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire ships 

message: With the additions of  and  today, WikiProject Ships now has 300 DYK articles listed on our DYK page. (There may be others not on the list, so if you know of any ship DYKs not listed, please add them.) Keep up the good work, everyone! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few of mine that had been knocking about (thanks for the reminder!). Up to 310 now. Benea (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one of mine that wasn't on the list (added). Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow,that was quick!  created 0815 yesterday, DYK 0056 today! Mjroots (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found five of mine that weren't there, put them in a moment ago. I couldn't help noticing the list is alphabeticed by article names, aka so that all ships with the same prefix are grouped together. Shouldn't they for the sake of consistency be alphabeticed by the actual ship name and not the article name? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I created the subpage, I just copied what had previously been on the main page, order and all, but I thought alphabetical (ignoring prefixes and/or disambiguations) was actually the way to go. I wanted to see if anyone else thought so, too, so I have reordered them now. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listed below are 44 more.  I don't have the time at the moment to format 'em  if someone wants to do it, that'd be great.  Otherwise, I'll pick through them over the next couple of days... HausTalk 05:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project DYKs 

message: I've been checking online and have been unable to verify the information on the article page. Does anyone have an alternate source that could be referenced for the Iosif Stalin and the Vyacheslav Molotov ? Shinerunner (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this article came from the Russian Wikipedia article, which in turn was based on a June 1991 article in the magazine BOKPYT CBETA.  A partial google-translation is available here.  Hope that helps.  HausTalk 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the research! I'll add the link to the article.Shinerunner (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some additional information available at The Soviet Fleet website here. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iosif Stalin class passenger ship]] 

message: In response to the discussion above, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to this proposal, there has been an alternative renaming proposal advanced. Both proposals would benefit from more opinions from all interested editors. The original proposal and the suggested alternative are both found here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles 

message: Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force#Cerberus class battleship?, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template 
Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.
If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian MILHIST task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comment on [[Cerberus class battleship]] 

message: The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney. Although already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMAS Sydney (1934)]] 

message: List of aircraft carriers by country
i suggest deleting seaplane carriers from this list or making a separated list for them. opinions? Loosmark (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several early seaplane tenders and carriers had flying-off platforms, and the seaplane tender article describes them as "the first aircraft carriers". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly don't delete them, at the very least retain them as a separate list. But as Graeme has said seaplane tenders/carriers and conventional aircraft carriers overlap in their roles/time periods etc, so there seems to be a reasonable argument there for retaining the two together (though clearly demarcated of course). Why do you want to separate them/delete the seaplane carriers? It would be helpful if you could set out your reasoning so we could have a clearer understanding of your proposal. Benea (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country 

message: If any editors have some spare time i think theres an article that needs a major revamp.Ship Commissioning appears to be the only article on wikipedia about what a Commissioned Ship is. I was expecting to find an article along the lines of Commissioned Ship but there is nothing. It seems odd that there is no major article on this subject, considering how many  lists of Commissioned ships there are and the fact commission dates appear on every ship page. Could someone please take a look at this problem if they have the time, either to try and improve the Ship Commissioning article or create a new page called Commissioned Ship. Even if it was just a stub, i think it would be worthy of an article, im just shocked there isnt one already. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be useful: Putting a Ship in commission The London Saturday Journal, February 16 1839  Petecarney (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioned Ships 

message: I've proposed renaming :Category:Bangladesh Navy Ship to :Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy, in line with our more standard conventions as seen at :Category:Ships by navy. The discussion is here, interested editors are welcome to comment. Benea (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the two examples you give use adjective forms of the navy in question, i.e. "Argentine" and "Brazilian."  Wouldn't the adjective form Bangladeshi as in :Category:Bangladeshi Navy Ship be more consistent? HausTalk 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered that. We have the Argentine Navy and Brazilian Navy, but the article here is at Bangladesh Navy, which is what their official website bangladeshnavy.org terms it. As far as I can make out the demonym is 'Bangladeshi', and to be honest, their grasp of English seems a little suspect ('Equally individuals seek respect, pride and honour are in demands of the Navy.') I wonder if using the term 'Bangladesh Navy' is due to mix-up over the adjectival form of Bangladesh. But then again, we have the articles Bangladesh Army and Bangladesh Air Force, so maybe this runs deeper. Either way, it would be Category:Ships of the Bangladesh(i) Navy, rather than the format in use now, which was created by a user with a slightly flawed grasp of English (he consistently refers to 'Petrol Vassels' for example). Categorising by Navy runs off what the official name for the navy is, rather than using 'Country Navy' , so :Category:Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy rather than Ships of the Chinese Navy, so I guess the important thing to discover is whether the Bangladeshi Navy is officially termed Bangladesh Navy, or whether Bangladesh Navy is a flawed attempt at the adjectival form of Bangladesh. Benea (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Bangladesh Navy" sounds, to my ears, like "Germany Navy" or "Poland Navy"  which is to say patently incorrect.  However, as you point out, the issue goes well beyond SHIPS: perhaps it'd make sense to try to build consensus at WT:MILHIST? HausTalk 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  I take it back: apparently "Bangladesh Navy" is the correct term.  Anybody want to join me in a fielding a petition to Iajuddin Ahmed to please, please have it changed? HausTalk 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename 

message: Can an admin rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia? HausTalk 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Shimgray | talk | 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks much! HausTalk 17:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request rename M/V Biscaglia to MV Biscaglia 

message: Based on the above discussion, I have requested a move of :Template:Warship to :Template:Ship on the requested moves page, here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Please join the discussion here: :Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion —G716 <T·C> 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:DANFS]] 

message: A new article, needs a bit of work to bash into shape though. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Conqueror (1855)]] 

message: I ran across this stub Provence II (shipwreck) and wanted to know if it should be renamed? Shinerunner (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Provence II. HausTalk 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a question: why is the article titled Provence II, but referred to as La Provence in the text? Has anyone the sources in the article to compare? Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't La Provence the name prior to wartime service? Shinerunner (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just tweaked the text to focus on the ship as a ship.  The article claims La Provence was the name before refitting as an aux cruiser.  HausTalk 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rename 

message: The Naval Historical Center has officially changed names to Naval History & Heritage Command according to the main page of the website. I suppose there are some templates in use that will need to be updated. --Brad (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Historical Center has changed names 

message: The A-Class review for SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary)]] now open 

message: The peer review for USS Liberty incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[USS Liberty incident]] now open 

message: Empire State V. Can anyone spot what is wrong here? Infobox won't align, text is messed around and uncat tag is into the infobox. I've spent 15 minutes on this already.  --Brad (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Un-bonked.  Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dangit. I knew it had to be something simple like that. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giving a hawsepiper a golden opportunity like this to make fun of SUNY Maritime cadets, yet expecting him to be WP:CIVIL is just mean. :) HausTalk 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can relate. That's why I stay away from Phil Collins an FA no less. I might need an Airsickness bag. --Brad (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire State V article is bonkers 

message: Many of the ships in the Stone Fleet list have articles with the USS prefix.  A quick spot check of DANFS (looked at Marcia, Margaret Scott, Peter Demill and Robin Hood) yields no evidence that they were ever commissioned into the US Navy.  See also :Category:United States Navy Stone Fleet ships.  I think unless a citable source can be found to show they were commissioned, the articles need to be renamed (or more likely just absorbed into the Stone Fleet article).  Any civil war naval buffs have a source or want to straighten this out?  --J Clear (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were going to remain as separate articles then we would have to use the prefix for wp naming standards. However, I've long thought that the articles are far too short to warrant articles for each. So I would agree they should be merged into the stone fleet article. --Brad (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is specific criteria for the title "United States Ship". Being owned by the USN is only one of the criteria, being commissioned and being operated by uniformed navy personnel are two other important ones.  DANFS is obsessed with commissioning dates, so the fact that none of these vessels have a commissioning date listed would lead one to at least doubt they were.  So USS is not "the prefix" to use here.  And outside of naval vessels, prefixes are uncommon for age of sail vessels (e.g. Cutty Sark, Niña).  --J Clear (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed in a lot of places and the consensus was to use USS for any US Navy ship for purposes of WP naming conventions and not US Navy conventions on this issue. By your observation we should begin renaming many ship articles including  and  for starters. --Brad (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Fleet ships 

message: Is this article using the correct ship prefix? I thought that it would be RV or MV. Shinerunner (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the external links and the German article, I don't see anything to support PFS as a prefix or part of the ship's name.  The article's creator only had about 150 edits, and the last one was in 2005.  Personally, I'd lean towards renaming it as MV. HausTalk 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurred with Haus. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree as well. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I would guess that PFS is short for Polarforschungsschiff = Polar research vessel. There is a picture on the official site captioned "FS Polarstern", and Google gives about 13,400 hits. Presumably FS is short for forschungsschiff = research vessel. So I'd expect the english transliteration to be "RV" google gives about 23,200 for "RV Polarstern" but only about 138 for "MV Polarstern". That is the evidence which causes me to lean toward RV.--Petecarney (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PFS Polarstern]] 

message: The preceded by/followed by links in the US BB class are messed up around the South Dakota class Wezelboy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not, we include the canceled classes. Therefore the progression is Colorado, South Dakota (1920), North Carolina, South Dakota (1939). -MBK004 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US BB Class chronology messed up 

message: The A-Class review for Lexington class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Lexington class battlecruiser]] now open 

message: There are two ship articles at FAC that could benefit from additional input. The nomination for  is here, and the nomination for  is here. Both have been open for some time. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Ships FACs that need attention 

message: I reassessed this to B class today. Does it have the potential to go to GA class? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a note for the editor who did the bulk of the work. It's not far off. Maralia (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SS Princess Sophia]] 

message: Bizzare question time, can anyone identify the ship in this photo please? cheers muchly Khukri 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SS Normandie.  Kablammo (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Khukri 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help required 

message: *List of ships attacked by Somali pirates
The list needs to be expanded based on the info from International Maritime Organization. There are a number pf PDFs from the IMO at http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334
Mind that the IMO info is for piracy world wide. Article is confined only to "Somali pirates".
-- Cat chi? 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —G716 <T·C> 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:DANFS talk}}]] 

message: Since  now redirects to , is there any objection to following the same process we used when consolidating our infobox templates, namely:
# replace occurences of warship with ship
# when finished with step 1, deprecate warship, and
# finally run warship through the WP:TFD process
Cheers.  HausTalk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably keep the redirect at  for some time, as editors may take a while to transition to the new, shorter name.  On the topic of replacing the template occurances, currently I am churning through with AWB, but a surprisingly large number of articles need to be manually edited because  was used instead of  and  (no doubt because it predates them) as well as several instances where it was used instead of  and  (perhaps due to force-of-habit).  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's quite the same as the infoboxes, since it's a redirect, and, thus, no longer a different template anymore. In looking at reasons to delete a redirect, I don't really see any that apply directly to this situation. I also honestly don't see any advantage to wholesale replacing of instances of , but, conversely, see disadvantages—clogging watchlists with no net benefit to readers, for example, which borders on the trivial. Every editor's manner of spending their wiki-time is of their own choosing, but in my view, it's a waste of time. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I don't see any harm in keeping that one there, as a redirect. As long as they are both reading off the same... wiki sheet :D... there shouldn't be any issues. Martocticvs (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have engaged my bot to replace each instance of  with . The redirect can stay of course... Ideally you do not want multiple references to the same template. People shouldn't learn the wrong way. :) -- Cat chi? 12:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not wrong if, (a), it redirects to the same template, and, (b), it works. Thanks to your bot run, my watchlist is overflowing with changes that have no net benefit to our readers. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally bot edits are exempt from watchlist notification. If you set up your watchlist to see bot edits, you will see bot edits. -- Cat chi? 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, my watchlist has always included bot edits. (I do know how to exclude them, but have chosen not to.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then by the very nature of things seeing bot edits is only natural for you and should not bother you as you have chosen to see them. You can easily tell which edit is a bot edit and which one is not. -- Cat chi? 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I do not mind the changes to article space and feel that replacing the  redirects will benefit the project in the longrun.  However, changing project and user space pages is annoying at best, while the updates to talk pages may go against the WP:TALK guideline.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was marked as a minor edit. That should not generate a "you have got a new message" box. So nothing has been violated here. You are too easily annoyed. -- Cat chi? 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I again sincerely apologize from everyone for trying to do something productive. Like always I got what I deserve. Accusations and plenty of yelling... -- Cat chi? 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way, but, as I was trying to point out, the edits weren't really all that productive in the grand scheme of things. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What harm has it done to the site? Seriously? -- Cat chi? 15:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecate {{tl|warship}} now? 

message: I've expanded the MS Hans Hedtoft article, but a German reader is needed to extract further material from this source and a Danish reader to extract further material from this source. Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German and Danish readers required 

message: I ripped the B-Class FAQ from milhist and updated/adapted it for Ships. I think I covered the main idea of B-Class for this project but alterations are welcome @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/B-class FAQ. --Brad (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class FAQ for Ships 

message: The peer review for SMS Moltke (1910) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 20:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[SMS Moltke (1910)]] now open 

message: Over my time editing articles relating to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), particulary articles relating to the ships thereof, I have become frustrated and confused with the system of categories used to categorise ship articles. 
I would like to suggest a reorganisation of the category tree: :Category:Naval ships of Australia at the top, with four subcategories; :Category:Active naval ships of Australia, :Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies (possibly renamed), :Category:Ships of the Royal Australian Navy, and :Category:Australian naval ship stubs. The "Ships of the RAN" category would be kept empty of individual ship articles, which will be categorised into subcategories based on type (destroyer, cruiser, submarine, etc) and/or role (training ship, survey ship, etc).
Part of this reorganisation will require the creation of several subcategories based on type/role, the standardisation of category names for the same type/role (we have some that are "Type of the Royal Australian Navy", some "Type of Australia", and some "Royal Australian Navy type") and the removal of overly-specific subcategories, such as :Category:Battlecruisers of Australia, (which only contains and only will contain the article HMAS Australia (1911)) or :Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of Australia, (which with the exception of HMAS Albatross is identical to :Category:Royal Australian Navy aircraft carriers and :Category:Aircraft carriers of Australia).
I've drawn up a rough layout at User:Saberwyn/The Grand RAN/New category structure. This page also contains a breakdown of the type/role subcategories that are currently in use, need to be created, and need to have names standardised; a list of "Odd categories out" that I feel need to be merged, have their contents split out into other categories, or don't know what to do with. Some examples of how the new category structure will be applied to various RAN ship articles is provided.
Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated. Particularly, I would like to know if the subcategories should be standardised at "of Australia" or "of the Royal Australian Navy". -- saberwyn 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our category structure is so complicated and convoluted, it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.  Generally speaking, I support any effort to fix the current cat. mess, however I think we should also keep the category structure consistent across the various nations` navies (a la our WP:SHIPS-CAT project guidelines).  Speaking of, I thought I remembered some discussion about updating WP:SHIPS-CAT to address the redundancy between the quasi-parallel ships of nation and ships of navy category structures (using the RAN for example, this would be  and ).  While not explicitly addressed in Saberwyn`s proposal, his example appears to do a nice job of eliminating the duplication.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorting out the navy/nation issue was one of the happy side effects I hoped to achieve with this reorganisation. As for WP:SHIPS-CAT, would it be an idea to use this reorganisation as a test case, then propose alterations to the guideline based on its successes and failures? -- saberwyn 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation of Royal Australian Navy-related categories 

message: I'm well under-way with the recategorisation, and based on this think that the easiest way to solve the Navy/Nation issue is to ensure that all military ships are classified under their operating force, not their operation nation. These 'navy' categories would be subcategories of the "Naval ships of foo" cat. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Navy/Nation problem: Solution?

message: The A-Class review for USS Iowa turret explosion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[USS Iowa turret explosion]] now open 

message: With 36 FAs, 18 featured pictures, and 245-ish DYKs, we certainly have enough material to support a pretty rich portal.  I'm curious if a ships portal along the lines of P:USN/P:USMM were to spring into existence, would anybody else be interested in working on it?  
Big tasks in initial setup would include:
# Creating 1000-ish-character capsules of FAs (example)
# Writing introductory text for the portal header (example)
# Creating picture captions (example)
# Locating/transcribing DYK text (example)
# Design/layout, what to include, where to put it
Getting the skeleton in place would be a matter of a few hours of work.  OTOH, creating the capsules would probably take 18-36 hours, and I don't know how long it would take to transcribe the DYKs...
Cheers. HausTalk 15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest in a ships portal? 

message: As I've never really worked on an article with a view to pushing it up towards the higher end of the assessment scale, I thought I'd just ask for some opinions on whether  is ready to be put up for GA assessment? Martocticvs (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Go for it. The Land (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving it a quick MOS cleanup pass now. I have a couple questions for you when I'm done (will put them on the talk page), but yes, it's certainly ready. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nice and positive, so I have nominated it! I'll keep an eye open for the questions... Martocticvs (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Agamemnon ready for GA? 

message: Anybody know which HMS Arabis this is? It can't be this one and it doesn't seem that this one fits the bill either. Was there a third? Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's this one - HMS Arabis (K73). Served with the RN from 1940 to 1942, with the USN as USS Saucy from 1942 to 1945, and with the RN as HMS Snapdragon until being sold in 1946. Benea (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, have expanded the disambig page. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HMS Arabis]]