Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SHIPS)

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Proposed deletion of Yacht transport

[edit]
Notice

The article Yacht transport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 5 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Extremely poor sourcing and spam.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the deletion discussion, but it looks like we could use an article for semi-submersible ship. Gatoclass (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the type does get a mention in Heavy-lift ship, so maybe just a redirect? Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made it a redirect for now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SS Delphic (1925)

[edit]

What is the naming convention for articles about ships that have been renamed? SS Delphic (1925) refers to the year when she was renamed, rather than the year when she was launched. Is this normal, or should it be "SS Delphic (1918)"? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the naming conventions here - that title is correct. What it boils down to is, the ship wasn't named Delphic in 1918, so we wouldn't want to use that year. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy (talk · contribs) is not correct. We conventionally dab by year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The naming conventions I linked states:

In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch.

Standard practice is to dab ships by year of capture/purchase if the article is titled under the new name. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for naval vessels. Not for commercial vessels. Delphic was never a naval vessel. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It might be the convention for captured naval vessels, but IMO it would be problematic for commercial vessels. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to amend the conventions, given that the page currently reads where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a...shipping company. There's nothing on the page to suggest that applies only to naval vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NVR stuff

[edit]

I've been futzing with Module:Naval Vessel Register URL, Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/data, Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/data extraction tool and the templates that use these modules: {{Naval Vessel Register URL}} and {{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL}}. I did this because the Navy, in their infinite wisdom elected to revamp the NVR website without providing redirects from old urls to the new urls; that broke all of these templates and any links from the old urls not backed up by an archive url. The 1200-ish articles that use these templates should all be working now.

As part of my futzing, I have removed the need for us to have two templates so I have started switching instances of {{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL}} to {{Naval Vessel Register URL}}. In doing that, I (re)discovered Los Alamos (AFDB-7) where there is this mess: 

*{{Naval Vessel Register|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7a}} |{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7f}}}}—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
*{{Naval Vessel Register|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=YFP14}}}}—YFP-14

That mess reminded me of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 77 § Template:DANFS.

{{Naval Vessel Register}} is an attribution template so I looked in Category:United States government attribution templates where I found these US military attribution templates:

These templates all seem to have common wording that isn't as awkward as the wording used by {{Naval Vessel Register}}:

Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from ...

So I've been thinking about reworking {{Naval Vessel Register}} so that it can fetch an NVR link directly from {{Naval Vessel Register URL}}. In the most common case, where {{Naval Vessel Register}} refers to a single NVR page, we might write:

{{Naval Vessel Register|SSBN-659}}

which might render as:

Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Will Rogers (SSBN-659) at Naval Vessel Register.

For the more complex version mentioned above, we might write: 

{{Naval Vessel Register
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}

which might render as:

Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G, section F, and YFP-14 at Naval Vessel Register.

Questions? Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the DANFS discussion - what about archive links? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doable, I suppose. We could support an |archive= parameter that would take a url: 
{{Naval Vessel Register
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|archive1=https://web.archive.org/web/20250719151228/https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=5372
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}
which might render as:
Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G (Archive), section F, and YFP-14 at Naval Vessel Register.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sandboxed at {{NVR/sandbox}}:
{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox}}
Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from the Naval Vessel Register.
{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|hull=ssbn659}}
Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Will Rogers (SSBN-659) at the Naval Vessel Register.
{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|hull1=ytb-779 |hull2=yt800}}
Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Manhattan (YTB-779) and No Name (YT-800) at the Naval Vessel Register.
{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|archive1=https://web.archive.org/web/20250719151228/https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=5372
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}
Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G (Archived), section F, and YFP-14 at the Naval Vessel Register.
Because there are 900+ articles that use {{Naval Vessel Register}}, the sandbox also supports the old format using the new phrasing, and one or two positional parameters for url ext links to specific pages in the NVR: 
*{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7a}} |{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7f}}}}—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
*{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=YFP14}}}}—YFP-14
Yeah, these are somewhat awkward, but the templates using positional parameters will eventually be replaced with templates using named parameters, after which positional parameters will be rejected and an error message emitted.
Suggestions? Discard? Keep?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There having been no objection, I have updated the live template.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query at RDM

[edit]

An editor is asking for the current port of registry of Point Nemo at WP:RDM. The information is available, but behind a paywall. If any editor can answer the question, please respond at RDM. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now answered, it is Seattle. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of ferry articles

[edit]

I see very common use of initials such as MV, MS, DEV, SS in the names of articles about ferries. Historically these were commonly used but is this consistently applied for modern operating vessels? I see from Ship prefix that it's probably outdated. I'm keen on tidying up naming of NZ ferry articles DEV Aratere, MS Kaiarahi, MV Kaitaki, MS Strait Feronia, MV Connemara, MV Livia and MS Kaiarahi. Was going to suggest the articles get named <ferry operator> <name of vessel>. (Cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport#Naming of ferry articles) Quilt Phase (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name of operator is not acceptable. That can change way too often while the ship keeps the same name. Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quilt Phase: you seem to be getting ship prefixes (RMS, SS, MV, etc) mixed up with names. Many companies give their vessels a prefix to their name, such as CMA CGM, all of whose ships follow the pattern "CMA CGM Foo". Another company that does this is Rhein-Maas-und See Schiffahrtskontor, whose ships have names in the format "RMS Foo" (e.g. MV RMS Mulheim). These are not Royal Mail Ships such as RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 where the RMS is a ship prefix, not a ship name prefix. The articles you mention would seem to be at their correct titles. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: What Quilt Phase is questioning is whether those prefixes should be in the Wikipedia article titles, which is a fair question. WP:SHIPPREFIX says "An article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name, if that name is unambiguous ... it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources".
Do we have any evidence that the ship owner uses these prefixes? Or is this just something we've applied by default? For example, I am not seeing a solid basis for "MS Kaiarahi". The owner's info page doesn't use it, and most of the Googled links that do include it do not appear to be reliable (there's a newspaper photo caption). Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: The majority of ship articles use prefixes. My interpretation is that this is something at the discretion of article creators, much the same as writing in the feminine or neuter genders. If there is more than one vessel with the same name, then we need to disambiguate somehow. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: That's ... not a view based in our policies/guidelines. Ship pronouns are covered by the manual of style. Article titles are covered by WP:SHIPNAME, which points to WP:Article titles and its important line "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." If "MV" etc. aren't used in sources, we shouldn't be using them here. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed. This is what I’m getting at. Disambiguating using unsourced initialling is arbitrary and can be best done otherwise. Quilt Phase (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, that disambiguation is by year of launch and then by where the ship was built, not by company. Llammakey (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC) 11:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship articles created over past 7 years

[edit]

Is it possible to generate a list of ship articles (specifically WWI and WWII merchant navy shipwrecks) that were created over the past 7 years? If you see what I posted here (at Talk:List of ships named on the Tower Hill Memorial), you will see that I am trying to avoid finding a spreadsheet I may not even have on this computer any more, as part of an idea for updating the listings in that article to take into account ship articles created since around June 2018? From the article history, I see some people have added ships as they write the articles on them (e.g. SS Aguila (1909) [written in 2024]), but some will probably have been missed. Might it also be possible to get a sense of how many of the ships might eventually have articles? I know not all will, but as I said on the talk page over there, back in 2018: "The listing will never be all the thousands of ships named, but will hopefully be of use." Do those who write these sort of articles about ships have a general feel for how many of the ships have been written about enough in secondary sources to potentially have Wikipedia articles? Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would question if the name of every ship which suffered casualties should feature in the article. In theory it could be nearly 5000 entries. Seems of little interest to the general reader Lyndaship (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list criteria are not at clear as they could be, but there was never any intention to list all the ships. There are sites out there that do this better. The intent was only ever to list those ships that are on the memorial that we have articles on (the vast majority we will not). This is made clear in the two headers for WWI and WWII:

Over 1400 [WW1] ships are named on the memorial; this list links to those ships that have articles.

Over 2100 [WW2] ships are named on the memorial; this list links to those ships that have articles.

Arguably this could be done by category, but a list allows slightly more flexibility in annotation and context. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This report is everything in Category:World War II shipwrecks or two levels of subcategories, created since 1 June 2018, which I think should cover everything. Similarly this report is the corresponding WWI category.
I'm not sure quite how reliable our indexing by country is, but if you combine WWII shiprecks with Category:World War II merchant ships of the United Kingdom, you get a very manageable 31 results in the last 7 years (and two more classed as "passenger ships" not merchant) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andrew. Very useful. I will see if the lists can be added to. The requisitioning of passenger ships and liners is part of the story here. I am hopeful that some of what people have written in those articles will help to bring some of the more human elements out. Essentially connecting what people have written about some of the names on the memorial to our article on it. The main article at Tower Hill Memorial is featured. This list article is a spin-off that was an attempt to bring out some more of the detail and history. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=1304371899"