Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

→

Featured List candidacy

Hi all, I currently have a ship list up for review at WP:FLC, and it's only garnered one review in almost 2 months. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could drop by and take a look. The review page is here. Thanks much. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a more specific link. A quick glance looks good. I will take a closer look a little later when I have some time and !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Ships at Wikimania 2014 - updated version

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Debark

The name of Debark (ship) is under discussion, see talk:Debark (ship) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Photos of interior of RN sub L33

Hi guys, I've inherited a about a dozen photos showing the interior of RN submarine L33 while it was on active service around the Chinese coast in the 1920s. Views of hydroplane operators' station, main engines, electric motors, officers' mess, ship's motto in wardroom, loading torpedoes etc. Studio shot of the crewmember

if of interest email me at projects@lassco.co.uk and I can scan and send you at whatever resolution you fancy. they all have a crew member's annotations on the back explaining what they are.

unfortunately total on line muppet so unable to contribute directly to Wiki

Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.235.136 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if someone wants to handle the uploading of these images, I'll help beef up the article to give it room to use them. Parsecboy (talk)

I think I've taken it as far as I can from Conway's and trawling through Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Talk:Manual of Style about pronouns for ships

See this discussion about whether to use the pronouns "she" or "it" to refer to ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear God, here we go again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before ad nauseum. The politically correct "it" argument flies in the face of centuries of use by mariners. Are we to re-write history now as a "feel good" gesture because someone's feelings happen to be hurt or they feel the need to "make a point"? Cuprum17 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, up above Andy Dingley made an applicable statement in an inapplicable (my opinion) context. Still, there is a tendency here to drive expertise into the wilderness with any old opinion apparently as good as knowledge gained over years of study and experience. I expect a lot of this is coming from people that only know ships in the abstract, have never spent one night at sea other than perhaps on some stabilized floating hotel designed more by hoteliers than naval architects—and whose ship "editing" will be in those word changes without one shred of actual research and content. As ships become as mass produced peas in pods as automobiles I suppose it is inevitable that "everyman" will sweep us ship people away. As for me, almost all my ships have been she, though there are a couple of rogue bastards I'd think of as "he" and at least one beast that I never wanted to see again that fully qualified for "it" with obnoxious smells, breakdowns at the most inconvenient moments and all the good temper in heavy seas of something growling in a cave. Palmeira (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD Arabic Case

There is an AfD discussion that may be of interest to members of this project here. Comments are welcome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Are there any guidelines for notability with regard ships/boats? When does a boat/ship become sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP? Or is every ship deemed to be notable, providing WP:GNG applies? TIA Atlas-maker (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there are no specific notability guidelines for ship articles. (Side note, there is a guide for what ship articles are tagged by this wikiproject, but that's not what you are looking for.) As long as you have the multiple reliable published sources for the ship, I say go for it. -- saberwyn 12:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of ships should be able to meet WP:GNG, even cargo ships. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well other projects don't ascribe 'automatic' notability to all potential subjects. Most sports projects agree a participation level below which subjects are generally presumed non-notable, without significant coverage in reliable sources. So a local village football team which has its match reports on a village website would not normally qualify. Nor would they qualify if the coverage was in a local newspaper. The same goes for corporations, musicians, etc etc. I personally wouldn't consider a ship notable just because its mentioned in Lloyds Register of Ships and its sailing schedule gets a mention in a couple of newspapers. But my personal preferences do not necessarily a good notability guideline make. What notability threshold does MV Claymore 2 achieve, for instance? Atlas-maker (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's consensus that commissioned warships can be assumed to have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be notable (due to Jane's Fighting Ships and the various publications it inspired providing such coverage even before other works are considered). I don't think that there's a consensus for other categories of ships, and some arguments in recent AfDs that ships over a certain tonnage should be assumed to be noted received a mixed response. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you asked about a specific ship I will help you find a few sources before you get an idea to call for deletion. It is the Pitcairn Government's vessel, 'MV Claymore II' and one of the very few ways to get to a rather famous (note another ship mention) little very out of the way island. It gets a question for Her Majesty's Government and in encyclopedic discussions of Pitcairn. That is my ten minutes devoted to finding some references on-line. A little development of the Gambier Islands article and you have another link to the page you seem to question. About half the notability challenges for ships I see here would be solved by using the Google or other search engine. And yes, while I agree lots of minor ships can remain in obscurity and have suggested even many naval vessels with "articles" here really qualify for inclusion in a group article such as the (I think) pretty well formed series starting with List of Empire ships (A), many ships are far more important and notable than even major sports teams—for example, islands may depend on them such as with this one. Not "pop" doesn't mean not notable even if this "encyclopedia" often seems to focus on pop entertainers and such. Palmeira (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment In my experience notability in ships of any significant size is rarely an issue. Named warships are almost always going to be notable for the reasons mentioned by Nick-D. Additionally I have no recollection of any article about an ocean liner or cruise ship being deleted. Other commercial ocean going vessels are usually going to be notable though in some cases a little digging may be needed for sources. Once you get below that in ship size you might run into questions of notability, but even with ferries and river boats it's not usually all that hard to find enough to establish N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So, we have a few opinions ...

"The vast majority of ships should be able to meet WP:GNG, even cargo ships."
"There's consensus that commissioned warships can be assumed to have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be notable"
"In my experience notability in ships of any significant size is rarely an issue."
"Other commercial ocean going vessels are usually going to be notable though in some cases a little digging may be needed for sources."

But not enough to make some guidelines.

Can we even differentiate between ships and boats? In naval terms, I can understand that any fighting ship should have a presumption of notability. That makes sense. But the navy have more hulls than fighting ships. Where do we stop the inherent notability? I don't believe that every oceangoing commercial vessel has any inherent notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources is required to confer notability, and for me, then a listing in a ship register does not match up to that..

WRT the Claymore II, the 'refs' above say very little to the vessels notability other than it exists. One or 2 of them may be reliable, but they are deffo not significant coverage. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Atlas-maker: This is a little off-topic, but...a wise old Coast Guard Senior Chief Petty Officer once told me that the difference between a ship and a boat was that you could put a boat on a ship but you couldn't put a ship on a boat... Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So which of these is the ship and which is the boat? ;-) Atlas-maker (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the boat is the little one at the front! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That made me giggle... — Huntster (t @ c) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, made a start on MV Claymore II. Davidships (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Project-specific notability guidelines tend to have undesirable outcomes for wikipedia generally, despite the fact that they allow a small number of editors to score lots of points through rote creation of stubs from lists and directories; these articles might look OK to project stalwarts (they all have the same templates and categorisation and icons and headings) but don't actually benefit readers. For a while, there was a notion that any vessel within the scope of WPSHIPS was inherently notable, but we've got over that problem now. Let's not go back there. The GNG is actually a rather good tool; the threshold it sets - substantial coverage in independent sources - is actually the perfect basis for creating good content. Won't somebody think of the readers? bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The only proviso, and the reason I was asking in the first place, was that in a project with such guidelines, acting against such guidelines might be seen as disruptive behaviour. I'm happy to go with GNG as the abiding rules. But that does mean that most commercial oceangoing vessels will NOT pass the threshold. Naval hulls will. Identified wrecks will. Newsworthy - largest/smallest/newest/greenest/earliest/latest/etc - commercial vessels will. But the vast majority of company-fleet-listed handysized bulk carriers will not. There just are not the reliable secondary sources covering these ships. Mainly because there is no reason to. We don't write articles on every car or plane ever built. Why would we do so for ships? Atlas-maker (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points, well made. bobrayner (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And here we are largely in agreement. I say "largely" because I actually disagree on naval hulls, even "commissioned" hulls. Most merchant vessels, particularly cargo types, will spend their 30—50 functional years (if they go much more they tend to become noted as "historic" or begin having "notable" problems) plodding in obscurity unless accident or some major event drags them from port to port haulage. Though I can get interested in almost any vessel, and do research in larger areas with some trickling into here, let's take an example I've added: Coast Farmer. There is nothing notable about that vessel and information on it is repetitious and scarce; largely registration information and sailing ads in newspapers as it plodded in coastwise trade. Then came the event that dragged Coast Farmer out of obscurity and threw it into some notable and nasty events—WW II reaching the Pacific. I've got digital reams of vessels of "notable interest" only in the sense they existed and, as I often get tasked to do, "find the ship involved in . . ." some commercial or family event. That ship's involvement in the cataclysm that was the fall of the entire colonial empire from Singapore to the shores of Australia makes it notable while many a similar ship also plodded along in convoy after convoy, having the good fortune to not get bombed, torpedoed or otherwise sunk, that makes its place on a list about the best claim to fame forever. Now where I do not agree is with naval vessels of equal obscurity, though better documented because of the U.S.N.'s ship history efforts, about which even NHHC's DANFS can only come up with a couple of sentences for even a wartime "career" as is the case with almost all the yard and district vessels. Except for Wikipedia's obsession with internal coverage I'd recommend just lists and links to DANFS for many such vessels rather than creating "articles" with reformatted DANFS. As for Claymore II? A vessel that is essentially the only way to get to and the main sustenance of an island population with the "notability" of "where those HMS Bounty sailors vanished to warrants a hit here for those readers following that island, how it is supplied and how to get there. As I said, I took ten minutes or less searching. I rather expect that if I turned to really digging there would be at least a bit more. That said, I personally would integrate that vessel's name and role into a paragraph in the island article, putting "characteristics" into a footnote, since that is so far the source of notability, thus saving most readers a click. Palmeira (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit

So don't forget that anyone who knows something about a subject can bugger off right now. Elitist bastards. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

While we are tripping off slogans, did you know that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Actually, that's not a slogan. That's a policy! Elitist, my arse ... Atlas-maker (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As MV Claymore II now tagged per WP:GNG by user:Atlas-maker, comments welcome on the Talkpage. Davidships (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Having consulted in responding to genealogical research questions at a major library responsible for being the library of last resort when other institutions can't locate information, I can tell you that travel or service on ships, even very obscure ships, is often the only way to find reliable information about individuals in the past. If we are serious about helping real people in their personal efforts to uncover the historical record, we need to acknowledge that what is most important to many amateur historians is the quest to discover their own family's past. Providing source material on historic ships is a service that helps democratize the spread of knowledge-- and to my mind, Open knowledge is the purpose of the encyclopedia. Djembayz (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. As someone who has often fielded many a request from veterans and their descendents concerning often obscure ships that took vital part in quite notable events, yet are very difficult for the layman to even find, much less get some understanding of their history that put them into the event, I agree. It is interesting that "notability" guidelines not inappropriate for transitional sports figures or quickly fading pop stars seem to be misapplied to ships that have and are serving in vital roles, such as being the main link with the world for an island. No, not every cargo ship plodding obscurely from port to port will or should get a mention here, that is what trade journals and registries are for. Ships with unique designs or services or that have stepped out of the ordinary in history do. Palmeira (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that my {{notable}} tag has twice been removed from the Claymore article despite my protestations and despite the talk page discussion not achieving any consensus. I guess WP:AFD is the only option left. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that your objections are beginning to shade toward fanaticism and that others have found references, sound ones, government ones, that you refuse to accept. Consensus does not make right, it can be a consensus of the ignorant, the idiots, or whatever. What is clear here is that this little ship has a history, one that can be developed, one that is beyond some run-of-the-mill merchant vessel—or even commissioned naval vessel that never sailed beyond a harbor—without one unique, exceptional or "notable" feature beyond existing. You don't like ships? I do not like mundane popular entertainers. I'm not making a life mission of questioning notability for the myrid articles of various has beens and also rans. The business about these vessels being of considerable interest to everything from genealogists to veterans to travelers and those interested in history and geography is well taken. Enough! Palmeira (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough? Who do you think you are? Jimbo? Chief Navigator of Wikipedia? Arrant nonsense! For the record, I love ships. I work with them every day. This 'ship' is about as notable as a Block Island ferry. I don't refuse to accept references. What I say is that they don't provide significant coverage. I may be wrong about that. But I am entitled to hold that opinion. Just as you are entitled to hold your opinion that I am wrong. The idea that somehow the presence articles about mundane entertainers gives you the right to have an article about your pet hobby is nonsense. Wikipedia is not a genealogical source. There are plenty of sites out there providing such reference material. It doesn't need to be replicated here. Any argument that it does is misinformed and poorly argued. Thats not what WP is for. In my informed opinion, MV Claymore II is worthy of a short paragraph on one of the Pitcairn Island articles and the article should be redirected there. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Has anyone heard of the Lusitania and Mauretania being referred to as "Lusitania class" ships? I haven't, but an editor has been pushing this without sources on the two articles. This has also been pushed on the Aquitania article, though in that case I am fairly certain that the term is not applicable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but I've seen some people who have a tendency to "classify" ships even though no widely recognized "class" exist. Tupsumato (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The ships were sometimes referred to as either the Lusitania- or the Mauretania class in the 1900s, mostly in respect to dry docks and piers that were able to accommodate them or needed to be extended to do so. But unlike with the Olympic-class, it doesn't seem the term stuck, as it doesn't show up after WWI. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Which Resolution?

Can anyone help me with a disambiguation dilemma?

I have been writing an article on Theophilus Jones (Royal Navy officer), which involves a mutiny after which 12 sailors were hung at Portsmouth in September 1798. One of the two ships used for the execution is named in the contemporary newspapers reports as HMS Resolution.

However, the list of ships at that HMS Resolution doesn't leave me very sure about which one to link to. The possibilities are:

HMS Resolution (1770), broken up in 1813
HMS Resolution (1771), Captain Cook's ship, disappeared in 1782
HMS Resolution (1779) lost in the North Sea 1797

Of those 3 vessels, only HMS Resolution (1770) was still in the Royal Navy's possession in 1798. Before I dismabiguate the link to that ship, I thought I should check here, because the whole thing seems odd. I thought that the RN had only one ship of any given name at any point in time, and if so, this list is wrong.

Should I just conclude that my assumption was wrong, and link to HMS Resolution (1770)? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another option is not to link the ship, pending identification of the vessel in question. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG - I think you need to get a copy of Ships of the Royal Navy from the library. I'm sure it will be there. Sorry I can't be of moire help. Atlas-maker (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've the book in question and it's definitely the 1770 ship that you're dealing with there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickerson 41

This pleasure sailboat seems marginally documentable, but I'm not clear on the notability of these various makes and models. There are a lot of others like this, only with more words (but often with no references either). I'm dropping this message on the sailing wikiproject as well, but I'm given to understand that they are not that active. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubious edits by IP

Please can someone review recent ship-related edits by User:94.193.131.142? They are uncited, and some remove images. There are vandal warnings on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And straight after coming off their latest block, they are back at their disruptive editing - look at Type 43 destroyer where they are back at there continuing pattern of inserting unsourced nonsense and reverting it.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a pretty clear pattern of disruptive editing in ship related articles based on this IP's contrib log. I dropped another warning on his/her already cluttered talk page. If it continues then I suggest ANI with a request for a longer block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Also see the contributions of 94.193.131.253 (talk · contribs), who appears to be the same editor and appears to be back to the same pattern of editing, filling Type 43 destroyer with nonsense, removing and re-adding it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of the edits by 94.193.131.142 (talk · contribs). It looks like they just made up some of the dates though I can't find a source for most of them. There are quite a few of their edits left as "current" version if someone else could take a look at those, they are probably fake as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP is blocked so at least no more damage is likely to occur overnight. Unfortunately this is a situation where common sense precludes AGF. Every single edit from this IP that is not unimpeachably sourced needs to be reverted. I am too tired tonight but I will start on it tomorrow. This is going to be a pain in the @$$. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question How do we fix the older edits? I can only see the last 500 and I am pretty sure this prolific vandal has more than that under his/her belt. On a side note, I have stopped checking the individual edits. As of right now I am treating every one as presumptive vandalism and I'm just reverting on sight. There are too many to spend time looking at them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Clicking "older 500" does not work? Also, you can change the "limit=" value in the address to show e.g. 2000 edits. Tupsumato (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

S/He is back with a new IP address. Has anyone started an SPI yet? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the checkusers will do anything with purely ip edits due to privacy reasons - there does not appear to be a linked account to investigate.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now looked at every ship related article edited by the first IP and all of the edits have been reverted,fixed or in a few cases, cleared by the SHIPS team. I haven't had a chance to look at the contrib log for the second IP yet. I wonder what kind of life someone has that they spend all their time trying to sabotage an encyclopedia? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Good news After the new IP went on an editing spree today I took the issue over to ANI and this resulted in a range block. Hopefully this will put an end to this particular problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Help required at WP:AFC help desk

Ships expert to assist with this query, please. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A nice article in the making. Just one wider question about its proposed title Will (Thames barge). That seems acceptable, but we have a hotch-potch at present: Sailing barge Thalatta, Edith May, SB Cambria, SB Hibernia, Zebrina (ship) and maybe others. Assuming at least some internal consistency is desirable, which style would be preferred? I am not a prefix fan and find it an unlikely search term - my preference marginally for Will (sailing barge). Davidships (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As it was me that suggested the proposed title, I'd better explain my rationale for it.

As a currently active vessel, "Will" should be in the title, not the previous name of "Will Everard". If there is a need to disambiguate a sailing ship, it is usually done by rig, with "ship" denoting a full-rigged-ship. Thus Mexico (barque), Maud (wherry), Lady of the Lake (brig) etc. Other methods of disambiguation are by year of launch, or builder, but I think that the rig of a Thames barge will suffice here. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that, though not all Thames barges had the same rig - strictly speaking Will's rig is spritsail, just as a Norfolk wherry has gaff rig. But I think for such smaller local traditional vessels the vessel type is a better disambiguator. Davidships (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Barneywilby: - if you need any help with adding info from the sources I gave you, please ask. I'm reluctant to steam in at the moment as you're doing well in writing the article. I can see nothing that would prevent it getting promoted when you feel it is ready. Keep up the good work

. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

HMS Solebay

Can the 1694 Solebay mentioned here possibly be the same one found on this webpage? Timeline is the same but the service history appear to be at odds with the wiki entry. Any ideas or more reliable sources? ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Any takers? ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is, the original writer seems to have got with confused with here that ship met its fate. I'd wikilink 'Boston Rock', but that article is about something quite different. Benea (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Benea: Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps it would be better to create a link "Boston Knock Sands" per the source quoted and this one, though a Google search brings up virtually nothing. The Wash may be a better redirect link for now. I have drafted an article for Galfridus Walpole, one of Solebay's commanders but could do with some help as I really don't know maritime or naval history. ww2censor (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD: USS South Dakota (BB-49) and sister ships

Hi. I have nominated USS South Dakota (BB-49) and sister ships for deletion. Please participate in the discussion. Tupsumato (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As a related issue, can people familiar with the South-Dakota class and sources for the article look at Talk:South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)#Missing_references?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Some advice on sources

Hi all, I'm currently working on SM U-21 (Germany) and am somewhat curious about using uboat.net as a source. I know that the current FA SM U-66 uses it, but that article passed FAC back in 2009 and I'm guessing that standards have risen since then. German Type UB I submarine, a current GA, also uses it and that wasn't questioned at its failed FAC in 2010, but that was still quite some time ago. As far as I can tell from the "about" page, none of the contributors to the site appear to be established experts that would allow the site to pass WP:SPS, but I might be wrong. Does anyone have any insight? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. - I probably won't take this article to FAC, as the available sources aren't really there - I'm mainly concerned about its suitability for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this pages. Although it is privately owned and seems to be run by an enthusiast, or a group thereof, I have found it of high-quality so far. They have done a tremendous job to make data on u-boats available in English, even correcting mistakes in German language publications. On the other hand, the fate of "u-bootwaffe.net", which disappeared a while back, leaving scores of dead links, makes me worry about the future, should "uboat.net" share the same fate. My plan for the near future is to add sources like Busch & Röll; Gröner; Hildebrand et al.; Spindler; etc. to uboat-related articles in order to "immunize" them from "disappearing sources sickness". This said, they are neither biased, nor extremist, they are reliable (as far as I can tell) and accurate, however they are not linked to an academic institution or a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. In a FAC I would advise to track down the sources "u-boat.net" used rather than rely solely on their efforts. Should that fail, they provide a email-adress, too. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is the wayback machine, which should in theory prevent the source from disappearing altogether, though it of course requires editors to update the links if and when they do go dark. I'd mostly be using uboat.net to reference the some of the ships U-21 sank; basically, only the ships from 1914 and early 1915 (and of course all 4 of the warships) are listed in the references available to me, but none of the various transports from later-1915 through the end of the war are mentioned anywhere (or at least not in connection with U-21 specifically - there are several contemporary registers of ship losses but of course during the war they could not have known which boat fired the torpedo). Do you think that's good enough for GA? Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries there. I checked the list on "uboat.net" against Spindler's "Handelskrieg" and they are all accounted for. Should anyone complain, I can give chapter and verse if necessary. I will be back where I have a more reliable internet connection Monday week, then we can discuss vanishing sources. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I'll go ahead and add the ships, probably in prose and a summary table. If I run into trouble on the source, I'll let you know. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's fine for GA, but likely fails the highly reliable source criteria for A class or FA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was figuring. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cuban Navy

Asked this on Military History project, but no answer: Cannot find info on pre-Castro Cuban navy. Is it absent, or have I missed something? Davidships (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It, along with any coverage of other pre-Castro Cuban armed forces, is absent. Mind you, the coverage of the current Cuban armed forces is pretty poor as well, with Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces presenting no real history or background to the current forces.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NI. Not my field really, so it would be good if these went on a "to do" list somewhere. Davidships (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

More eyes...

would be useful on HMS Peacock, where Prairieplant (talk · contribs) has been deleting redlinks to as yet unwritten ship articles, despite having been pointed to WP:REDLINK. Benea (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The user has also been deleting uses of templates like Template:HMS and Template:USS, e.g., [1], on the grounds that 'most of the time, the usual link brackets are used'. Benea (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Benea, I do not put in the ship lists in the articles on Patrick O'Brian novels, the series of twenty. The were in place before I ever read the articles. I do not like your tone of accusation, lack of accuracy and I hope this is the end of accusations. We discussed this on your talk page, no need to for this kind of talk here, or anywhere for that matter. If more people who have read the novels look at the articles that will be great! These articles need more work, beyond the ship lists.

Now can you explain what or in brackets means? Sorry you do not like the lead in to the quotation. Please write a better one. Jump in. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ship flags

Ohconfucius (contribs) seems to have a vendetta against the use of flags in articles. He's been removing flags from aircrash articles and now from ship articles. I've asked him to cease and desist from such action, but there are many articles that need to be restored to their former state. These can be identified by the legend "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" in the edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Template problem

At the top of MS Wissenschaft, there is currently an erroneous NO TITLE]] statement that seems to originate from the infobox template, but I could not figure out how to fix this. Thanks for any pointers or patches. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by removing the unnecessary {{italic title}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RMS Empress of Britain (1931)

RMS Empress of Britain (1931) is currently dabbed by her year of maiden voyage, rather than her year of launch. Could an admin move it to RMS Empress of Britain (1930), per WP:NCSHIPS, as a redirect with history is blocking the move. Benea (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean you're not an admin, Benea? Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Shocking isn't it...if only I was, then I wouldn't have to keep bothering you. :) Talking of which, here's another, RMS Empress of India (1891) - should be RMS Empress of India (1890) - per WP:NCSHIPS. When some of these articles were being written it seems that there was an unofficial practice by the creator to dab by year of maiden voyage. Benea (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Mjroots! I have a question for you then on Talk:Ocean ship about numbers built. Solid sources note 60 yet you apparently had reason to change that to 57 years ago. I looked at your page and didn't see activity of late so was "fishing" there. That Ocean ship subject is outside my recent interests but when I began hitting pieces on the group, knowing they were the models for the Liberties, I got distracted (easy to do reading a whole journal series in search of something else and running across little features like A Vanguard is Launched) and will spend a bit of time with them. Also, suggest a move of that article from "Ocean ship" that likely to some just means oceangoing ship to something like "Ocean type ship" or some such. Thoughts on title? Perhaps you could answer on the article's Talk page. Palmeira (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Having looked back through the Talk archive of WP:NCSHIPS, it's clear that dab discussion is dominated by warship considerations, with hardly a mention of merchant ships. For the latter, the launch year is rarely used as a descriptor in written sources and is often hard to find or is even unknown; year of completion/entry into service is virtually always known and in my experience very much more widely used. Staying with the example in hand, the sources I have to hand - Musk, Lloyd's Register, Hocking - all show RMS Empress of Britain (1930) as a 1931 ship and I would be very surprised if any of the cited sources characterise her as a 1930 ship. To me, the launch year defies both logic and common usage. Davidships (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Images related to National Defense Reserve Fleet

A lot of ships plans related to National Defense Reserve Fleet were uploaded as part of US historical places survey. I moved them to commons:Category:Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet. Files definitely needs better per ship categorization. They could be definitely used in articles. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rhino ferry, used at Normandy

I've been asked to help expand this article, but I'm in the middle of a move and have absolutely no time to do so. Would any of the good topic experts here be able to lend a hand? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemmema at FAC

I recently nominated hemmema as a FAC. Since the article is included in the scope of this project, I'm posting a notification here. If you have time to spare, please drop by with feedback and criticial comments.

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewers, please!

Hi all, I know the Featured List process is a little more obscure than its Featured Article counterpart, but List of cruisers of Germany has been up for review for over a month now and has garnered a whopping 0 reviews. If you could spend a few minutes to review the list against the FL Criteria, I'd be very grateful. Thanks much. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate any eyes on this - it's going on 2 months at FLC and will more than likely be archived before too much longer. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Star Line mystery ship

In 2011 the State Library of Queensland donated 50,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, including I think about 3,000 black and white photos of ships. There was a request to categorise them, but many have still not been properly categorised.

I have just categorised all the Blue Star Line ship photos I can find, but there is one that stumps me. Its library caption says it is Australia Star, which was an Imperial Star-class ship that Harland and Wolff built in 1935. But the name on her bow is invisible, and to me she looks like one of three replacement ships of the class that H&W built in 1946–47 to replace some of Blue Star's losses.

Post-war members of the Imperial Star class had a different bridge, masts and somewhat different superstructure. Compare this photo with those of Australia Star on the Blue Star on the Web site. I have found no evidence of Australia Star ever being modernised to loook like her 1946–47 sister ships.

I think I am right in deducing the photo is not Australia Star. But if so, what ship is she? Am I right in supposing she is either Empire Star (1946), Imperial Star (1947) or Melbourne Star (1947)? And if so, which of the three is she?

It's not a very sharp photo. If Commons had other photos of Australia Star, and photos of all three post-War Imperial Star-class sisters, it wouldn't matter. But it doesn't. Please will a contributor with a sharp eye for detail help to identify this ship?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Motacilla: - I've asked those nice folks over at the Ships Nostalgia forum for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The name on the hull, while very blurry, looks very much like Melbourne Star. Just my observation. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the image, and the original, and can't make out a name at all. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As with Huntster, it looks more like Melbourne Star to me (on the black hull) - I've enhanced it a little on the SN page. Also, the bridge front matches the post-war vessel, not the earlier one. Davidships (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Looking at the Commons version, the first letters are M(possible),EL(probable), the second word is plausibly STAR and the word lengths fit. Dankarl (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at Ships Nostalgia is that it's Melbourne Star. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Motacilla (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Two-funnelled mystery liner

Here's another mystery photo from the thousands that the State Library of Queensland donated to Wikimedia in 2011. The caption says only "Orion (ship)". It blatantly is not Orient Line's Orion, which had only one funnel and no dark top to its funnel. I know of no two-funneled liner Orion, but I guess it could be an old liner that was renamed as such by a later owner.

Few shipping lines had a plain-coloured funnel with a dark (presumably black) top and a capital "M" on the side. It doesn't look like Moore-McCormack: they had white-hulled passenger liners, but with a red M on a white disc on a funnel with green and yellow bands. One other clue: it looks as if there are a couple of coloured waistbands along the hull.

Please will a contributor with a compendious knowledge of liners help to identify this ship? Or if you have contacts at Ships Nostalgia, please will you ask them for their collective wisdom on this puzzle?

Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

With that funnel colour, she's clearly a Matson Lines ship, I'd have said. Benea (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And from other details, one or other of their 1930s liners SS Mariposa, SS Monterey or SS Lurline. None of which ever seem to have been named Orion at any point in their lives. Benea (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. I've now created a category

Media related to Ships of Matson Navigation Company at Wikimedia Commons and put four of Matson's white ships in it. I've categorised the so-called "Orion" file likewise, without hazarding a guess as to which ship she is. Please feel welcome to add images of other Matson ships on Commons to the category. Motacilla (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it could be SS Monterey. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Could United States speed at 44.7 knots? Math says no, FOIA (maybe?) says yes

Hey all, I've noticed an IP's recent edits and a comment at the bottom of Talk:SS United States#44.7 knots?. They claim that the New York Times sent a FOIA request to the US Navy while their reporter was writing an obituary for the ship's last captain. However, the comments in that section (from 2006[!]) note that the math doesn't work out. Can anyone here take a look? Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Over detailed additions

This chap is adding unsourced overly detailed contributions to British warship articles. I would ask the opinion of the project and that an eye be kept on this. Britmax (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

{{DWT}}, metric tons vs. long tons, and automatic script runs

Hello. I had the following discussion with User:Trappist the monk on his talk page regarding scripted edits for {{DWT}}:

Hello. I noticed that you were adding "clarify" tags to several articles. In international shipping, the deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons (this is also the figure in the classification society databases from where I source most of my tonnage figures) and thus there is IMHO no need to clarify it in Wikipedia neither in the infobox (the abbreviation is always DWT anyway) nor in the text (that is, no "metric tons deadweight"). Of course, in case of older ships such as Haudaudine it might be long tons... Tupsumato (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, the script can't know if the ship is older or newer; {{DWT}} provides a mechanism by which DWT can be properly quantified and adjusts the display accordingly. Readers may not know that nowadays DWT is uniformly metric. I think that adding the {{clarify}} templates is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to the missing parameter. I did think about changing the template to emit an error message and/or add a maintenance category; {{clarify}} seemed simpler. Have I truly done a bad thing? If you think so, perhaps this discussion would be better moved to WT:SHIPS.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How about not running automated scripts for heavily used templates without discussing it first at WP:SHIPS? I'm not saying what you do is "truly a bad thing" and in general you're doing a good work with the project, but if it concerns thousands of articles, it would be a good idea to discuss it first with other active editors, especially if it results in some kind of tag or error message in just about every ship article.

While I agree that readers may not know about modern shipping, in my opinion there is still no need to mention it in every ship article. The article body should contain a link to deadweight tonnage where it can be explained and properly sourced. As for the template itself, DWT is an official figure and it should not be adjusted according to user preferences (that is, there should not be any automatic conversion). Also, I've been removing "metric" from the template over the years when I've encountered it, for I see it as needless redundancy in case of modern ships ("I'm going to call you with a phone").

Anyway, I think it's a good idea to move this discussion to the project page and discuss it before continuing any script runs. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this concerns the whole project, I think it's a good idea to continue the discussion here.

Rewording my original statement: In international shipping, deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons and abbreviated as "DWT". It is an official figure stated in the ship's documents and thus should be presented in Wikipedia without any kind of conversion to/from long tons or other units of tonnage. Cargo capacity, on the other hand, can be presented with {{convert}} if suitable figures are available. Furthermore, deadweight tonnage should be spelled out and linked in the article body when describing the general characteristics of the vessel to provide people with no deeper knowledge about maritime trade a possibility to read further into the topic.

IMHO, there is no need to specify it as metric in case of modern ships — it is "needless redundancy" — but if the tonnage is known to be measured in long tons in case of some older ships, the additional information should of course be stated ("xxx long tons deadweight"). Since it's very difficult to find the original unit for older ships, I propose that in such case the text could be left as "xxx tons deadweight" or "deadweight tonnage of xxx tons". After all, that's what pretty much anyone reading "DWT" out loud would say.

The reason I'd like to discuss this and propose the guidelines explained above is that I'm trying to avoid ending up with thousands of articles with an error message or a {{clarify}}, some of which may never be removed. Sure, {{DWT}} is only used in a bit over a thousand articles as of now, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't theoretically be used in just about every merchant ship article. Tupsumato (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Tupsumato did address parts of this topic at WT:SHIPS DWT template, part of a longer discussion WT:SHIPS GT, GRT, NetT, NRT templates both now in Archive 38, but did not pursue the issue beyond its initial mention; nor did other editors. That left me with keeping {{DWT}} as much similar to its then present state as I could in keeping with the purposes of my proposed change (to get rid of the non-intuitive |first= parameter).

At some point, someone thought that it was right and proper that the template utilize a units parameter. I don't particularly care one way or another except that if the template has a units parameter, is should be used. But, if it is omitted or left blank, a default value should be assigned and the output rendered accordingly: 36,000 t DWT if metric is the default or 36,000 LT DWT if long tons is the default. A ambiguous display of 36,000 DWT, which could be either long or metric is inappropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for everyone, and not just people intimately familiar with ships. The problem, from my point of view, is that there is currently no mechanism to let a casual reader know whether a number reported as DWT is metric or imperial. Consider the entry for Haudaudine:

2,393 GRT
1,734 NRT
3,100 DWT

If I don't know the abbreviations then I can click on GRT or NRT to find exactly what it means, but if I click on DWT the article deadweight tonnage, says "deadweight tonnage was historically expressed in long tons but is now usually given internationally in tonnes". "Usually" isn't the same as "always", and it tells us that old ships (perhaps including the Haudaudine) historically used imperial. So, I am left being unsure whether DWT is metric or imperial. It probably makes sense for Wikipedia to apply a standard reporting convention (for example, maybe DWT should always be reported as metric tonnes), but whatever convention is used also needs to be apparent to a casual reader in some way. If the problem is that the editor writing the article is unsure whether a historically reported value was metric or imperial, then I also think that should be indicated. {{clarify}} could be a mechanism for indicating unit uncertainty though other options are possible too. So, I agree with Trappist that the DWT entry needs to either specify the units (or indicate that the units are unknown) or there needs to be some relatively easy mechanism by which a reader can discover that DWT on Wikipedia is consistently metric (if that is the convention one wants to follow). At the moment the units used are going to be unclear to many readers which is not a good thing. Dragons flight (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Deadweight tonnage, like maximum takeoff weight, tells the reader what is being measured. But, unless the reader is aware that recent ships will have it in metric, there is no way for them to know that what units it is in, and may assume that is whatever their local "ton" is.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against "36,000 t DWT" and "36,000 LT DWT", for I have never seen such usage anywhere where DWT has been abbreviated, but I could accept a new field titled "Deadweight tonnage" in the infobox and "36,000 long tons" or "36,000 tons" (or "36,000 metric tons" if you want to put emphasis on metric system) as input. However, I'm not sure how to deal with other tonnages. Having four additional fields ("Gross tonnage", "Gross register tonnage", "Net tonnage" and "Net register tonnage") would feel a bit excessive and we could end up with a lot of articles stating that the gross tonnage is "xxx tons" which is of course incorrect (there's no unit for modern tonnage while old tonnage was measured in register tons). Also, just having "Tonnage" and "Deadweight" would feel wrong because the latter is also considered "tonnage". Tupsumato (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GRT, NRT and DWT are three different things. Therefore, all three should be given where verifiable. GT is different still, as was b.o.m. Different measuring systems for different eras. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true, and that's what I've been trying to do in the articles I have written. That is, gross tonnage, net tonnage and deadweight tonnage. However, my point was that perhaps we could separate DWT to another field where it could be specified in tonnes or long tons. Tupsumato (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary. It should be obvious from the age of the ship whether or not imperial or metric tons are meant. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much my reason for starting this discussion. Do we really have to specify metric vs. imperial in every ship article where DWT is given, including e.g. modern cruise ships, and introduce new ways of denoting DWT (e.g. xxx LT DWT or xxx t DWT)? Tupsumato (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious from the age of the ship whether or not imperial or metric tons are meant. Perhaps to those who are intimately versed in the archana of ship specifications, but to the general reader? How is it obvious to that person?

Yes we do have to specify DWT units for the general readership because Wikipedia is not a specialist publication. If xxx LT DWT or xxx t DWT is offensive to you, how about xxx DWT (LT) and xxx DWT (t)?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always write things open in the article body. Most of the abbreviated information in the infobox is not obviously to people with no previous knowledge about ships. That's why every bit of information should be repeated and explained in the article body. "DWT (t)" is just as cryptic as plain "DWT" to someone who has no idea about deadweight tonnage. Tupsumato (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The same question applies to "length" and other measurements that are perhaps an even worse case of ordinary reader confusion. How many ways are there to measure length in particular? Why wouldn't an ordinary reader be a bit confused to see a sometimes significant difference in a single ship's length when comparing one found here and elsewhere? How many actually go to pages that explain one way? Or maybe this one? Even know they perhaps should? What an opportunity for a pass by edit as well. One could rack up a significant edit count by going through all those copies of DANFS here dealing with former commercial vessels and "correcting" lengths alone. Whoa there! DANFS states USS President Monroe (AP-104) was 491’9” and Lloyd's has the same ship at 465' exactly. Correction! Worse, not all sources, even fair ones, specify just which length measurement is being specified each time. DANFS for example. Quick, top of the head, just how does the USN measure length? Palmeira (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that any non-specialist would get too exercised about the difference between metric and imperial tons. And to take Palmeira's point further: There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles which contain outright errors, often facilitated by conversion templates. Some examples: (1) placing burthen or gross, gross register, net, or deadweight tonnage in the displacement field, and by extension (2) any conversion template used in the field for tonnage, except in the case of DWT; (3) conversion templates for mass (weight) in the tons burden field; and, for that matter, any conversion template used in that field; (4) Royal Navy ships before 1873 which use the displacement field rather than tons burden (except in a few rare instances where displacement has been calculated); and (5) inconsistencies and confusion in what is measured by "beam". Those are actual errors; the lack of specificity in the use of DWT is not-- at least until someone comes along and incorrectly applies a conversion template. Kablammo (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have come adrift. The question is {{DWT}} and what we do about it. If we want to tlk about ship lengths and conversions then separate conversations on those topics should take place elsewhere.

What to do about {{DWT}}?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We should have the tonnage field and leave it at that. (We could have a separate field for DWT, but it's not really necessary.) We should not require the editors (most of whom are not specialists) to choose one field or another, or to specify the unit measure when that may not be known to them. At least then we will avoid errors, rather than enable their introduction. Nor should deface infoboxes with ^{[clarification needed]} when the units used may not be known to the editors. Kablammo (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, in those few articles where there are long tables with DWT values, I'd go for least characters and just use {{DWT}} without any attributes. For example, List of world's longest ships looks pretty awful now that someone decided to add "tonnes" to the table. Tupsumato (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am pretty content with the current state where {{DWT}} produces an output suitable for the infobox (e.g. 5,000 DWT), and the contributors are left to explain the unit in the article body, preferrably using the built-in features of the template (e.g. 5,000 tonnes deadweight (DWT)). However, I would prefer to see the abbreviated versions (e.g. 5,000 t DWT) go as I have never seen anyone using them outside Wikipedia — it's always just 5,000 DWT. Also, I'd steer clear from including {{convert}} to {{DWT}} — in those few articles where someone wants to explain how many tonnes or long tons of cargo a ship can carry, he can use the normal conversion template as the figure is different from the deadweight tonnage. If we need a default unit (for the non-abbreviated output), I'd go for metric as that's by far the most common unit used to measure deadweight tonnage. That is, spell it out as "tonnes". Tupsumato (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is really worried about the average reader's shock and mystification, and assuming an editor knew the correct value in the first place, why not follow Kablammo and Tupsumato and keep it simple. And while we are on that, anyone want to bet most readers in the U.S. will assume a ton is a tonne is a ton without a thought the first might be US ton and the others a bit different? I won't take that bet for a moment. Assuming my handy dandy phone app is correct 100,000 metric ton value is 98,421 long and 110,231 US so for most people a 100,000 DWT ship being "only" 1,579 difference in long ton capacity is pretty trivial. Most probably neither know nor care what DWT really measures. That is why I introduced "length" into this discussion. People have an idea about how long a ship might be, yet get widely different values that do mystify and confuse because they are unaware of the fact various methods of measurement are used to describe what seems to be the same simple ship aspect. Palmeira (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As with tonnage, length can be described in the text with links to explaining articles. In the recent articles I've written, I've usually just given length overall in the infobox and maybe waterline length in the article body. Length between perpendiculars has pretty much no practical meaning, so I've usually omitted it even though the figure is easily available. Tupsumato (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone said, length is "off topic" but not all sources specify which is used and some, particularly old and specialized references, only use the "oddball" length between perpendiculars. Just yesterday I got to specifications for two Army vessels that have long had vague or questionable dimensions and details. Army seemed for a time to like LBP and speed in mph and a normally nautical reference used LBP and "miles" instead of knots. Where LOA is available that I think is the most descriptive for the general public and even specialist outside marine architecture/engineering where WL has its specific purpose. One of the references noted LOA is important to know if you are handling a ship because one does need to know where it will fit. For the general public with "big" or "bigger" ship interest that applies as well—and I question whether which DWT or perhaps even DWT really means much to the average reader that usually wants some indication of relative size as they would see the ship in port or at sea. Palmeira (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

LBP can be useful to estimate displacement, if one knows or can estimate a block coefficient. See Hull (watercraft)#Metrics That in turn can be used to test uncited assertions of ship displacement, which appear throughout Wikipedia and often are the result of confusion of tonnage with displacement. An example where the block coefficient is known, is at Talk:HMHS_Britannic#Dimensions. So yes, I occasionally find LBP useful, especially when media report a cruise ship in some distress "weighs" x tons. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course one should use LWL for C_B, but then again LBP is closer to LWL than LOA, the former of which may not always be available, so that's a pretty good method. Never thought of that. Still, I have a personal vendetta against any kind of perpendiculars... Tupsumato (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of measurements there is an interesting comparison in a case I'm looking at this morning. The next article, Short History of Tonnage Measurement—Analysis of the Influence of Tonnage Laws an Marine Transportation Equipment is pertinent to the tonnage discussion. The interesting length issue comes from comparing the design specifications in a professional journal and Lloyds for SS Antigua. The detailed article New Turbo-Electric Steamship Antigua lists dimensions with specifics and, being the "'Official Organ: Pacific American Steamship Association/Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast" with considerable emphasis on shipyards, construction and design, carries considerable weight. So, measurement techniques and differences become interesting. Antigua's particulars from that journal:

Length over all 447-10"

Length on designed waterline 428-9"

Length between perpendiculars 415'-0"

Beam, molded 60-0"

Depth, molded to upper deck at side 34'9"

Designed draft, molded 24-0"

Displacement, to designed waterline 10,928 tons

Gross tonnage. U: It seems clear to me from the above that there can be no simple resolution of this in favour of either metric or imperial interpretation, and in my view the peppering of DWT references with clarification tags is both unhelpful and inelegant. I would propose leaving the DWT template as it is, but adding in the ship article guidance that editors should be recommended to include in the article itself a definition of the tons referred to, where that is identified in the sources (perhaps also listing the practice followed by the commonest sources - eg Equasis (presumably metric), Lloyd's Register (presumably changed from imperial to metric at some point). Davidships (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

. S 7035.12

Net tonnage U. S 3523

Cargo capacity, refrigerated 240,070 cu. ft.

Cargo capacity, baggage, mail, etc 5,370 cu. ft.

Fuel oil capacity 1,405 tons

Fresh water capacity 730 tons

Shaft horsepower, normal 10,500

Service speed, knots 17½

Compare with Lloyds (1933—34). Dimensions are given as 415-7, 60-3 and 24-1. It appears Lloyd's length is closest to the journal's "Length between perpendiculars" here. Note too that the journal specifies tonnage as "U.S" as well, the probable difference (thought I haven't done the conversion). Pacific Marine Review, many issues on line in various formats, including full .pdf, is a useful resource for anyone looking into U.S. shipping. I keep getting diverted from my supposed search finding other interesting stuff there. There is great detail on engineering to launch ceremonies up until self censorship shut down most detail in April 1942. Palmeira (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So what is the disposition of this topic? What to do about {{DWT}}? —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear to me from the above that there can be no simple resolution of this in favour of either metric or imperial interpretation, and in my view the peppering of DWT references with clarification tags is both unhelpful and inelegant. I would propose leaving the DWT template as it is, but adding in the ship article guidance that editors should be recommended to include in the article itself a definition of the tons referred to, where that is identified in the sources (perhaps also listing the practice followed by the commonest sources - eg Equasis (presumably metric), Lloyd's Register (presumably changed from imperial to metric at some point).

PS for Palmeira. You cannot do a conversion to change US registered tonnages to any other. 100 cu ft=100 cu ft. The differences arise from different national measurement rules - exactly one of the issues that the universal GT/NT measurements were designed to overcome. Davidships (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Davidships. One field for DWT. Kablammo (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. As far as I can tell, Editor Davidships makes no mention of the term 'field'. Can you clarify me?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My "vote":

First, no script conversion of measurement types (excluding straight foot/metric and such values) as originally mentioned by Tupsumato is my vote. I do not think script conversions are a good idea given the several doubts that can exist with a stated number. There is too much chance of converting a value in an unintended way. A blunder of the same type as a quarts to liters script converting an imperial quart with a U.S. quart-to-liter conversion factor and a new value that is just wrong is high risk.

Second, on "clarify" tags, I think a tag on a talk page might be better to attract editorial attention for attention in the project as with photo or info box needed tags. It would make sure these numeric values are at the least sourced to one of the standard references for ships, Lloyd's or other register. Just pulling a number out of some author's book or article is pretty meaningless unless we know where they got the value—and too many do not state that. The good ones do, and many, for commercial type ships, turn out to have used Lloyd's when cross checked. That said, how many of us that know ships on a personal basis can state precisely without looking it up how Lloyd's or some Navy measures its ships? Quick! At precisely what presumed load/waterline level does the USN measure displacement? Anyone up on DWT or any other commercial ship tonnage, or who just read that 1932 article I noted above, will realize that tun/ton itself originated in a capacity and volumetric measurement.

We can all try to clean up and more precisely define source and nature of the values but rote conversions are dangerous even when a person is doing it without knowledge of surces and facts. Palmeira (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yet another conversation that produces not much.

I have run a modified version of the awb script that added the {{clarify}} templates to articles where {{DWT}} did not specify a unit of measure (long or metric). This time the script removed the {{clarify}} templates that it had previously added.

Just for further clarification, my script never added any {{convert}} templates to any of the articles that use {{DWT}}, {{GT}}, {{NetT}}, {{GRT}}, or {{NRT}} templates yet that topic appears multiple times in the above conversation.

What to do about {{DWT}} remains unclear.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified warship

Thankyou to everyone who has helped to identified ships in photos from the State Library of Queensland collection on Wikimedia Commons. Here is another with which I would be grateful for help.

She is a small three-funneled warship on the Brisbane River, in an undated photo apparently in the early decades of the 20th century. A branch of a small tree in the foreground obscures the part of her bow where her name ought to be. I guess she is likely to be a destroyer of the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy. I would be grateful to anyone who can at least name her class, so that the photo can be categorised properly.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Too big to be a destroyer, I think what you've got there is HMAS Encounter (1902). Benea (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good eye, Benea, certainly looks like Encounter to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, possibly, her sister HMS Challenger (1902), although the odds favor Encounter since she actually was transferred to the RAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for narrowing down the possibilities. Challenger served on the Australia Station and Wikimedia Commons has photos of both Challenger and Encounter in Brisbane. I have therefore categorised the photo as "Challenger-class cruiser" and left it at that. Thanks to you all for your help. Motacilla (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Grange Branch

I have now joined Ships Nostalgia to seek help identifying ships in photos on Wikimedia Commons. As yet I am not finding the SN site very easy to navigate, so I would be grateful to any Wikipedian also active on SN who can help me to settle in.

Even some captions that name the ship can leave one little the wiser. I have asked SN members to help to categorise Grange Branch, a cargo ship shown in this photo in Townsville, Queensland in about 1901. A [1902 newspaper] calls her a "turret steamer", a [1908 newspaper] calls her a "turret-deck steamer" and says one of her crew was Chinese. A [mariner's discharge book] names a Captain WR Gresser who served on her. Her name seems to follow one of those "fleet name" formulae, but whether the fleet had names all beginning with "Grange" or all ending in "Branch" I do not know. Her funnel seems to be black with four plain white hoops. The only company with such markings that I can find is Nisshin Kisen of Tokyo, which seems unlikely in her case.

I have not found Grange Branch in any other source published online: Lloyd's Register (in which there is a crucial gap online from 1899 to 1930), the Clyde-built, Tees-built or Tyne-built registers, uboat.net, shipslist.com or wrecksite.eu. If I get an answer from Ships Nostalgia I will categorise the photo accordingly. If any Wikiproject Ships members are likewise able to help, please do! Best wishes as always, Motacilla (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As a turret deck ship, Grange Branch is likely to have been built by William Doxford & Sons. However, [The Sunderland Site] does not mention her. The mystery continues! Motacilla (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ORANGE BRANCH - http://www.photoship.co.uk/JAlbum%20Ships/Old%20Ships%20O/slides/Orange%20Branch-01.jpg

From a SN discussion on Turret Ships:

BULLIONIST - O.N. 106021 3,460gt, 2,196nt 340.3 x 45.6 x 24.5 feet - T3cyl by the shipbuilder

27.6.1896 launched, 8.1896 completed by Wm. Doxford & Sons, Sunderland Yard No. 243 as BULLIONIST for Angier Bros., London. 1898 sold to Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. Ltd. (F. & W. Ritson, managers), Sunderland renamed ORANGE BRANCH. 1919 sold to K Steamship Co. Ltd. (Kaye, Son & Co.), London renamed KEMMEL. 23.2.1920 wrecked Cape Verde Islands whilst on passage from Rosario to Constantinople with meat and flour.

Davidships (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Davidships for correcting the name. At first I wondered what you were on about! I have now categorised the photo accordingly and added it to the articles Turret deck ship and List of shipwrecks in 1920. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Regia Marina warship

Do any of you know about old Italian warships? Here's a photo from the State Library of Queensland of an old warship flying the Italian ensign from her stern. I guess the ship is late 19th-century. The photo is inscribed "I.G. Calipe", which the source has taken to be the name of the ship. I have found no Italian ship called Calipe, so I am wondering if it is merely someone's name written on the photo. The photo was not necessarily taken in Queensland, or indeed Australia. Any ideas what class of ship she is?

Thanks as always, Motacilla (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be Calabria, which did indeed visit Australia in 1905 (see here for instance). Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the ship looks like Calabria. It looks cruiser-sized, has a single funnel and three masts.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's with, I've started a basic stub at Italian cruiser Calabria - should get to fleshing it out later tonight or tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've refined the photo's description and categories accordingly. Motacilla (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

IP editor changing flag icons

108.53.93.116 (talk · contribs) is making lots of changes to various lists of shipwrecks. He or she is changing the flag icons from national ensigns to service pennants. I've reverted the edits several times on List of shipwrecks in 1913 but am approaching 3RR now. I don't have the time or energy to engage in a massive cleanup on this but wanted to bring it to the attention of the project, specifically Mjroots who works very hard on these pages. If I'm wrong in thinking we only use national ensigns on these lists, please let me know. —Diiscool (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there an applicable MOS (I looked in WP:MOSSHIPS but did not immediately see anything) that provides guidance on which pretty icon to use? Also, I might suggest a heavier emphasis on the D part of WP:BRD, as this appears to have been a case of bold-revert-undo-revert-undo-revert-undo-discuss. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diiscool:, it appears that 108.53.93.116 (talk · contribs) is correct, per United_States_Lighthouse_Service#Flags, these vessels do fly a dedicated flag. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, thanks for responding. Clearly, I had no idea. —Diiscool (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, I've learnt something new too. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. The purpose of these icons is to indicate nationality appropriately. Whether there is a specific pennant for the USLS is beside the point. I thought that we used the appropriate national ensigns, as flown at the stern, not assorted pennants, houseflags etc flown at the bow, mainmast or wherever. Is there any reason to suppose that these ships did not fly the unadorned US national ensign. There are some photos at http://lighthouseantiques.net/Lighthouse%20Tenders.htm

Davidships (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, the color and pattern variation of these things attached to ships other than those places reserved for national ensigns in port or at sea in wreck data would certainly make the pages mystifying (to readers) and fun finding out what the thing is for us "ship people"! Then if clarity and simplicity is the goal assorted "assorted pennants, houseflags etc" are a bad idea. Palmeira (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidships: - Nationality is indicated by

United States Navy,

United States Lighthouse Service,

British Army etc. To a lesser extent, it is also indicated by

Reichsmarine.

Volksmarine,

Regia Marina etc. It is not readily indicated by

RNLI,

SNSM, etc, but we'll just have to live with that.

The point is, not all ships fly the same flags as their country's national flag. Thus

or

instead of

.

instead of

,

instead of

. Using the correct flags gives the reader the opportunity to learn something unexpected, thus sustaining the reader's attention. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But, unlike all those in your second group, the USLC's pennant was not, so far as I can see, flown as a national ensign in place of the national flag; and even the US Coast Guard's own "ensign" is subordinated to the national ensign when flown. Davidships (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Davidships: - yes it was, the referenced source says so. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Thanks. I stand corrected - for the period prior to about 1910, it seems. The WP article is economical with the cite's truth. Davidships (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1913 fails WP:MOSICON, so we should kill two birds with one stone by removing the inline flag pictures altogether, just as we have done with other articles. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner:, in which case, so does every other list of shipwrecks. This issue has been discussed many times before, and consensus is that the flags are appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh, not again with the flags of the shipwreck lists. The flags are clearly appropriate, and important in helping sort the ships. Manxruler (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice for Sinking of the RMS Titanic

Hi WikiProject Ships. The editnotice for Sinking of the RMS Titanic (which advises people editing the article that the article is written in British English) expired on 1 January 2014, which means it is not currently displayed when people edit the article. We have three options:

Delete the editnotice (because it is no longer required)
Change the expiry date to some future date (which will cause the editnotice to be displayed every time someone edits the article, up to that future date), or
Remove the expiry date (which will cause the editnotice to be displayed every time someone edits the article, indefinitely)

My suggestion would be to go with option 3. What do other people think? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added 10 years on for now. Option 3 sounds good, subject to consensus. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Option 3. A useful holding action Mjr, but I cannot see the point of time-limited advices for type of English. Change can presumably always follow specific article talk page consensus. Davidships (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with #3. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have removed the expiry date, so the editnotice will now be displayed indefinitely. Thanks for your input everyone. DH85868993 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Option 3. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes of draft to depth—need to take another look!

I was just checking some changes that moved "draft" values to "depth" and see we may have a bit of an interesting problem as depth and draft are two entirely different measurements but authoritative Lloyd's uses "depth" when the same ship described in other references specify "draft" for the same (or approximately the same) value. Taking one ship as a quick example, the C-2 Mormachawk (1939):

Lloyds: 27-5 "Depth"
DANFS: 26'5" "draft"

And we know that was a Type C2 ship where that article notes:

The first C2s were 459 feet (140 m) long, 63 feet (19 m) broad, and 40 feet (12 m) deep, with a 25-foot (8 m) draft.

Maybe we need to define just what measurements Lloyd's is using there as "Depth" and whether the term is being used as we understand it. Palmeira (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Depth and draught/draft are two different things, so one would expect the measurements to be different. With the online Lloyd's Registers from 1930-45, draught (if given) is in the far right column. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned—depth and draft/draught do not measure the same thing at all. Far right column? The column with the three values, Moulded depth, Freeboard amidships and Corresponding draught/draft is blank more often than not. In the ship I mentioned, Mormachawk (1939), above the Lloyd's dimensions are given as 438-3|63-2|27-5 and that 27-5 is in the sub column that in English headings is headed with "Depth" so the value is not that different from other references' "draft" which should roughly at least compare to "moulded depth" less freeboard as seen in the diagram below. So, if we take Lloyd's 27-5 to be depth as in moulded depth and the specifications for C2's and Navy drafts we have a ship without freeboard! In addition, that "Depth" value in "Dimensions" does not usually correlate that with the Moulded depth approximate equaling freeboard + draught so it is representing a different form of "depth" measurement. In a number of cases I have just checked it often approximates the "Corresponding draught" value more closely than the "Moulded depth" value. The problem, and I've been guilty as well, is plugging these values into infobox slots that may not apply. In my opinion the infoboxes are overly complex with details largely of interest to naval architects, builders and ship's deck officers—and ship's officers I've worked with probably have that moulded depth somewhere other than the top of their heads while draft is certainly a critical value. Do we really need those measurements in a general interest "encyclopedia"? Do we need to just do a better job of defining just what is meant here and in references (and some of those are pretty arcane) and in placing values against infobox terms? Palmeira (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In the example you give for Mormachawk, no draught/draft measurement is given. Looking up the page to Marioka Maru, you will see length 360-0, breadth 51-2, depth 28-5, and in the rightmost column draught 28-8. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. See Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics and this diagram. →

Kablammo (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nice diagram showing the differences. My point is not what those measurements mean but that the infobox opportunities to plug a value into the wrong measurement is excessive and that values for one being plugged into another is being done. I've done it myself. As above, the issue is one of highly varied things being measured using different measurement techniques (small book required to cover it all) even for the same thing as can be seen by digging into a single ship's "moulded depth" from a builder as compared to Lloyd's as one example. I could only grin looking at this page and seeing "Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP). Builder's Style", "Length Between Perpendiculars. (LBP) Board of Trade Style" and "Depth moulded to 'C' deck - 64' 3". (Lloyd's Register has 59' 6", using a different method of measurement.)"! Palmeira (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are different measures of depth, see Builder's_Old_Measurement#Depth, and it would not be surprising that in some cases depth of hold approximates draught, even though freeboard extends above that. Kablammo (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is where it gets "fun" though. How many ways can name for "draft" alone? I can think of several off hand. With regard to Lloyd's, the "Depth" value within Lloyd's "Dimensions" column is very often equal to or very closely matched "draft/draught" in other references—in fact some official documents I use frequently simply take those Lloyd's dimensions as the L x B x draft for their dimensions. As a result of closer inspection during this discussion I am now interested in just what Lloyd's is measuring—just which specific line on one of those diagrams is being represented. Taking another Lloyd's page from 1934—35 there is a ship I recently worked on here as well as some samples of those measurements. SS Antigua is on that page and there is another reference that should be authoritative (Official Organ: Pacific American Steamship Association/Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast) New Turbo-Electric Steamship Antigua—a ship whose sisters became naval vessels such as Ariel that here is USS Ariel (AF-22). For that ship Lloyd's "Depth" in "Dimensions" is 24-1 which is close enough to "Designed draft, molded 24-0" in that shipowner/builder's journal and sister ship's DANFS dr. 26" (military loading or different methods?). Case closed? Not at all. On that Lloyd's page drop down to Antinea and look at the "Depth" and "draught" values where the dimensions value almost splits "moulded depth" and "draught" values (Yikes! low freeboard!) and then look at that page above I "checked" and RMS Queen Mary where that "Depth" is 68-5 and "Draught" is 41-4½ and Wiki has 39 feet (earlier Lloyd's values of 38-10½). Now the rest of the ships on that page have the two values more closely matching, but just what and how is Lloyd's measuring for each thing there? I am no longer quite so sure! Unfortunately I no longer have casual access to the nautical libraries I once had for work, one that had Lloyd's volumes going back into the late 1800s, so I cannot trace the story. We "ship people" may have some fun trying to do so.

My actual point remains. We have a cloud of sometimes uncertainly defined values trying to settle into some slots in the infoboxes that are themselves not precisely and technically defined. Where possible we should explain in text, but that end result could be a huge and very technical section full of ship's architect/builder/operator specifics of little meaning or just confusing to readers. Should we begin agreeing on simplification? Palmeira (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed a lot of ship infoboxes from draught/draft to depth on the grounds of verifiability: Lloyd's Register is a source that we trust for for many ship dimensions, so I have taken its entries at face value. The Register does include draughts for the majority of ships about which I write, so I add them too. I note that where other contributors have given draughts from other sources, these sometimes differ markedly from Lloyd's entries. These are generally merchant ships that have been requisitioned for naval service. But whereas depth is fixed, draught varies subject to many factors. If a merchant ship has been modified for naval service, might it not displace more and therefore acquire a deeper draught?

I am no expert on such details: I simply transcribe what I see and tell stories about ships. I will trust those of you with more technical insight to determine what we should do. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Motacilla, the draft/depth of the ship that got my attention, USAT Meigs, is covered in some detail PMR, June 1921—a nice 3 page article with profiles and such as well as detail on construction. That is useful for comparing with Lloyd's for the same ship where that "Depth" in dimensions is 26-2. Two depths and one draft are noted in the article: "Depth molded to second deck—29' 9"", "Depth molded to upper deck—38' 3"" with "Draft, load (designed)—28' 11¼"" (close correlation between loaded draft and depth to second deck: 9.75 inches difference in this ship) so it looks as if the variance in Lloyd's from approximating draft to very different depends on which deck is used and that may depend on type and specific design of a ship (cargo vs. passenger for example). Then . . . there are several definitions of "deck" among casual users of the term, i.e., the "shelter deck" upon which one walks in the sea breeze is not strictly speaking a "deck" in design and technical usage (it shelters the "real" deck suitable for heavy cargo). Palmeira (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Motacilla: - you are correct. Adding weigh (e.g. armour) to a ship means that it will weigh more. According to Archimedes' Principle, it will then displace more water, and thus have a deeper draught and shallower freeboard. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Major modifications must deal with the stability issues so design draft is something one messes about with using great care in keeping those centers of gravity and metacentric height values from becoming disastrous. Palmeira (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that beam x length x draft/draught is the 'standard' means of measuring ships; 'depth' is a specialty item for the vast majority. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Design draft is the key, and Bushranger is correct in that l x b x draft/draught is the usual basic dimension in all but technical usage. Note that quote from the Antigua specs: "Designed draft, molded 24-0". That is a specific characteristic of the ship and fixed—until a major modification changes the design. Unfortunately there seem to be different ways of measuring design draft, so modifiers like "moulded" are required (note the same with "depth"). That is why you will find ships heavily modified for naval service changing design draft and some permanently "damaging" accommodations for stability. Mormachawk (1942) is an example of that. Scrapped because it was not economical to reconvert after "permanent ballast" in the form of "Cement blocks 15" x 15" x 15" x 12" secured by "Braces and shores" in holds according to one of the MARAD vessel status cards. When you read the technical stuff you will find many ship's drafts are of importance and one presail check is a walk around checking trim by bow and stern draft checks. Draft amidships, where the load lines will show summer, winter and other "drafts" that vary according to season and from polar to tropical waters or ventures into fresh are measured. So, which draft? Bow? Stern? Midships? In summer? Up in Bergen or down in Rio? Loaded? Light? Those vary all the time, even over days as fuel is consumed unless someone is trimming carefully, and are working ship's officers things critical for navigation and safety.

Design draft is stable, a ship characteristic, until "redesign"—and somewhere in my files are photos of plans for conversion of military cargo types from one use to another in which there is a note on change in design draft with consequent stability issues. Fool with design draft too much and you have a stability issue; thus all that concrete poured into deep holds to keep somewhere near that designed draft despite going from lots of heavy cargo to light troops in transit. Now, as time allows, I am going to dig into just what measurement/how Lloyd's is coming up with that "Depth" in dimensions that very frequently approximates design draft, as in the Mormachawk (1939) I gave up top, with glaring and sometimes spectacular deviations. In the meantime I am going to be more careful in plugging that value into "draft" to make sure it is not one of the wild deviations from other references' "draft" values. We all need to remember there are perhaps too few short, common names describing too many measurements (Unless the readers are tax or toll collectors some measurements are effectively meaningless. Why were turret deck ships popular for a while?) and be careful what we put where. Palmeira (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Another warship in Queensland

Here's another unnamed warship for you from the State Library of Queensland's archive. The caption says "circa 1920" which may tally with the clothes of the spectators in the foreground. To my untrained eye she looks like a York-class cruiser, but they were completed in 1930 and '31. Expert opinions please?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hardly expert, but I'd say she's a C-class cruiser, one of the Carlisle sub class. Almost all of them served in the Far East in the 1920s, making a stop over in Australia very likely. The 1920s date tallies with the design of the masts incidentally, and the bridge design rules out the York class. Benea (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a member of the Carlisle subclass - the "trawler" bow is the giveaway. But as to which ship it is, it'd be very difficult to determine. Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)