Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 29

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 25

←

Archive 27

→

Clyde built

A few weeks ago, myself and one of the WM UK directors met up with Robin Urquhart of the National Archives of Scotland to discuss how we can work with them.

During the discussions, it was mentioned that they have a huge collection of images taken at the Clyde shipyards. These are partway through construction, through to actual launch.

By-and-large, what they lack is manpower and expertise to correctly catalogue these. Yes, a substantial part of the required work may well qualify as original research from a Wikipedia point of view, but this seems a too-good-to-miss opportunity to collaborate with the archives.

I would really like input from the WP:SHIPS community on what to ask for as a sample set of images. Bear in mind, I'm looking for minimal work on their part; Essentially, give us a random selection of images and the associated data the national archives hold, let Wikimedians poke it with a stick, and work out how the wiki community could collaborate with them to enrich their catalogue in exchange for access to the images.

Any feedback on this at all would be welcome. The ideal is if someone on WP:SHIPS is in Scotland and could come along and get introduced to the National Archives staff and take things from there.

I'll be checking back here irregularly to see what discussion this post may prompt; but, anyone based in Scotland with an interest should just go ahead and email me. Assuming we can work out some way of improving the archives' catalogue that they can point their paymasters (the government) at, I am quite confident they will be very helpful and happy to donate images. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question - when you say "Clyde built", do you mean the images of ships hosted on the Clydesite website? Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Captured ships CAT and List

A list would be nice but lists don't function as categories, and a list doesn't resolve the situation regarding captured ships being categorized as ship wrecks. We still need a captured ships CAT. No reason why we can't have both.
Once the CAT is created and the respective ships so assigned, it will generate a list of sorts which can then be referenced/copied to a refined and informative captured ship list. The list should also be sectioned off by war, each section/war in alphabetical order. The list should have a lede/intro, and perhaps each section (ie.War of 1812) should also have its own summary/lede. e.g.The War of 1812 was mostly a naval war, with many military and private ships captured, etc, etc.. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The captured ships list would work well in the See also section of any article about a captured ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The category is "maritime incidents in...", which doesn't necessarily mean a shipwreck. I think we ought to start the list off, and worry about splitting as and when it proves to be justifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following. A list is a great idea, but there was concern about 'captured ships' being categorized as wrecks. Now you mention a CAT for 'incidents' which is even a (much) broader term. Are you saying a CAT for 'captured ships' is not needed? Am not that familiar with the creation of CATS, but it was my impression one is needed for 'captured ships'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The concern was mainly about captured ships being listed as shipwrecks. The Maritime incidents category can be applied to captured vessels, although that category is again a subcategory of transport disasters, which doesn't really work too well with the capture of a ship. Manxruler (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason why a category for "ship captured in (year)" can't be a subcat of "maritime incidents in (year)". I was just saying that a maritime incident is not necessarily a shipwreck, although a shipwreck is always a maritime incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur. Should such a category be created, then that would be appropriate as a subcategory of the relevant maritime incidents category. Manxruler (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do both, create a list (and sublists) and a category (with subcategories), and we should do it now. I can create categories, while others are better at creating lists. Manxruler (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The list should be sectioned off by 'war' in chronological order, as nearly all vessels are 'captured' during a war. Pirated/captured ships can be in its own section at the bottom. Each section should have a small intro/lede. For those few ships that don't fit into any of these sections we could just have a 'Freak exceptions to the rule' section :-) (or 'Other') -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia search for "ship" and "captured" produces nearly 30,000 results. Therefore I'd say by century would be the initial split, with further splitting as it proves necessary. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

30,000 !!? -- Pew! You do realize though that a century-section (at least for the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries) is going to be one hellava section. How about separate lists for each century, divided by war in chronological order? Before the 1600's records of ships in general will be somewhat scant so we will probably only need a few such lists, with a 'See also' at the bottom of each list directing you to the other lists. i.e.Captured ships of the 19th century -- Gwillhickers (talk)

OK, calm down! 30,000 results does not mean 30,000 ships! There will be false positives and duplications amongst that figure. Suggest "List of ships captured in the nth century" would be a good title. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a list for each century sectioned off by war seems to be the best approach. btw.. do we really need the list with a title that says 'List of captured ships'? -- After all, articles of ships don't say 'Article of the Ship xyz'. Or do all lists say list? I've never checked on that particular item. Seems anyone with average grey-matter will be able to tell the difference at first glance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all lists starts with "List of..." so this should too. Divide by century is good, and further division by war completely necessary. Manxruler (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Type 209 submarine South Korea

I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm looking to get this problem resolved so I can continue editing. Right now there is a very heavily debated/sourced/questions-raised discussion ongoing about South Korean Type 209 submarine upgrades and modifications. I am requesting help from any editors with experience/knowledge about submarines (German/South Korean would be a plus) to help sort out the correct and incorrect and move on. Esw01407 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To wikifi or not to wikifi ...

I know there was a dsicussion on this some time ago, but I can't locate it. The question is on the lead sentence, should the ship prefix be wikified? I seem to recall that the discussion result was to not wikifi the initial bolded mention, but instead to wikifi the first usage of the prefix after that point. However, I can't find this anywhere, and the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Introductory sentence doesn't explicitly spell this out (although the examples provided show non-wikified). The reason I ask is there's a recent edit request to wikifi the prefix listed at Talk:RMS Titanic#Edit request from , 30 October 2011, and before responding, I was trying to locate documentation of a consensus of any type on this.

Does anyone recall where this was discussed previously, or where it might be documented? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is in the Wikipedia MOS. MOS:BOLDTITLE says "Do not place a link within the bolded title" at bottom of that section. RMS is defined in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. Maybe move that part to a 2nd sentence in first paragraph, like Titanic was classified as a Royal Mail Ship." -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with how it's currently setup, in the second paragraph. Just wanted to locate where it was documented to reply to the edit request (which has now already been turned down by another editor - so no longer needed). But, thanks still for the pointer, I'll keep track of that for next time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability criteria for inclusion in lists of shipwrecks

I've stated a discussion at WT:SHIPWRECK on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship's list development

Actually, not all lists have "List of" in their title, but the vast majority do. I'd suggest we worry about individual wars as and when there are sufficient ships to justify a separate list. The century lists should come first -

List of ships captured before 1601
List of ships captured in the 17th century
List of ships captured in the 18th century - Mjroots
List of ships captured in the 19th century - Gwillhickers
List of ships captured in the 20th century - Manxruler
List of ships captured in the 21st century

- should do for a start. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. If there are 30,000 examples (bearing in mind false positives), I would assume that almost every war in modern history (1517 to present) is going to present us with quite a few ships, so I would recommend structuring the list and getting the war sections in place before hand. Even if a war-section is left empty for a bit it will still give order and context to the list. This way we won't have to sort them out later when the lists take or larger proportions, which I suspect they will do right off the bat. A short and definitive lede for each list, and short intro's for each war, no more than a few sentences, would also make the list comprehensive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All good, other than that century should be written with a minor, not capital c. See: 19th century. By the way, I can think of a few captured Mediaeval ships too. Manxruler (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

List of ships captured before 1601 should work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That'll work. Manxruler (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as for listing the individual ships we should designate 1. SHIP (linked and in bold), 2. Country of ownership, 3. Country captured by, 4. Date of capture (when available, if only the year is known, then that will work, if unknown, we can simply specify 'unknown'). -- This is the format I propose.

* USS Philadelphia, United States, Libya, October 31, 1803

The list could specify this format at the top of the page so we don't have to designate Captured by ... and Date of capture ... after every individual ship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer the info to be in prose format.

USS Philadelphia (

United States Navy): The Philadelphia-class frigate ran aground on 31 October 1803 at Tripoli, Libya and was captured by the Tripolitanians.

Her subsequent destruction would be an entry in the relevant list of shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mjroot's suggestion looks best to me. When a ship is the capturing party in relation to another ship, do we need to include the flag of the ship doing the capturing too? I've always thought that it looks sort of messy when there are several flags in one listing. Also, it would be nice if we could spell out (when it's a ship-on-ship situation) what type of ship is doing the capturing?

I'd be favour of something like:

HNoMS Tyr (

Royal Norwegian Navy): The Vale class minelayer Tyr was captured on 20 April 1940 by two German Schnellboots in the Hardangerfjord, Norway. Manxruler (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of flags for vessels other than the casualty vessel is one that Manxruler has raised with me before. I'm not against the removal of such flags, but then again I'm not against their inclusion either. How about we leave those flags off from these lists, thus allowing a direct comparison between them and the shipwrecks lists, and then we have a discussion over the issue at some point in the near future? Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The flags are an excellent addition! They won't have any effect to a comparison to a shipwreck list for the few readers who might want to do that. The prose is also a good idea, so long as the entry doesn't become a paragraph, as the ship entry will be linked to an article. As the lists will be about Captured Ships the date of capture should be plainly visible and on the first line with the prose/other info following below. This is what it might look like.

Note: Dates are for time of capture.

USS Philadelphia ( United States Navy), 31 October 1803
A frigate that ran aground in the Mediterranean and was captured by Tripolians during the First Barbary War

HNoMS Tyr ( Royal Norwegian Navy) 20 April 1940
The Vale class minelayer Tyr was captured by two German Schnellboots in the Hardangerfjord, Norway.

Are we almost ready to launch? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "class" with any of the generic ship types like frigate, sloop, etc. Only with ships of an actual class like Tyr in the second example above. Same with vessel. Keep it simple.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's correct. Good point. I removed the striken term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And I also like Mjroot's thoughts on creating a comparison with these lists. What I view as positive about having a single flag for a single posting is that it keeps the focus on the listed vessel. Manxruler (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Another good point. More than one flag would divert focus, both subject-wise and visually. This will no doubt be a long list so we want to keep it easy to view as the reader pans through the many different ship entries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that we should split the centuries into 10-year blocks on a lvl 2 hdr, with individual years on a lvl 3 hdr. Use a toclimit of 2 to keep the table of contents manageable. Access to Colledge would probably be an advantage too, as many of the captured ships only have entries on shipindex pages. How about each of us start a list, and be generally responsible for the initial creation of that list, although any and all editors would be free to add or correct entries as necessary. I'd like to take the C18th list please. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've written rather extensively about ships and naval commanders of the 19th century I'll start the 19th century list. -- As for the fixed number of ten (decade) sections per century-list, there will no doubt be decades where no wars occurred and no ships were captured so having decade-sections with nothing in them will perhaps not be the best practical approach. Also, many wars no doubt over-lap into two decades so it's probably more practical to section off the century lists by war, in chronological order. For those few ships captured during peace time, they could be listed in between the given wars with a note: Peace-time capture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to move to a different part of the country in a couple of weeks, but I'll try my best. If I have a day or two to spend, things will work out. I would like to try to do something with the 20th century list. Manxruler (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Each item should be a brief statement (a terse prose statement if that's possible?). The Manual of Style (WP:Boldface) is against the use of bold, and if there's a red or bluelink there is an automatic "highlighting" of the subject. I'd leave off the flag but I know others prefer them. I'd give the class if it meant a bluelink could be provided instead of a redlink eg "HMS Noship, a D class destroyer..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If the MOS is against the use of bold, then it's out of step with long established practice in bolding the casualty vessel. Doing so emphasises which is the casualty. We can't use italics for emphasis as all ship names are in italics in the first place, and you can't italicise text already in italics. Underlining is not supported bu MOS, and somthing I'd be against too. So, we are left with bold italics for emphasis. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold italics works for me - and I rather like the flags, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We are also dealing with lists and virtually all the MOS do's and don't's regarding bold pertain to lede's, bio's, subjects, etc in article format. To visually differentiate names and dates of capture, the bold is almost a necessity, as these lists will become be very long. If we remove the bold entirely, even with italics, everything will appear run together, esp with the prose/notes for the ships in the lists. (Hey, doesn't WP encourage editors to be bold? -- just kidding.) If this becomes a pressing issue I'm hoping someone in higher places will employ some discretion with this rule and allow its usage in these types of lists, and again most of the MOS refers to bold usage in articles. Doesn't gave any examples, at all, about its employment in lists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the lists are in chonological order, then wouldn't the date go first? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would. The date must go first. Manxruler (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the many different lists of ships e.g. (1, 2,, 3, 4, 5 ...) they are all in chronological order, usually by date of construction/commission, while the placement of the date is seldomly (if ever) place first. The Ship's name (always) is. Also many lists have different formats; Some are simple, some employ boxes, charts, etc. In any event, there is definitely no 'one-size-suits-all' approach here. I thought we were settled on the above format, and that the issue now was to use bold or not. Need to get the bold issue straight before we take on other issues and before we take 'pen to paper'. Don't want to build a list only to have to redo format, etc because of a rule(?) that's not quite clearly delineated for list format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In a list of ships, its the ship that is the focus. For the RN ones they are split into period, then type (with captured ships separate) then in chronological order. Whereas I assume in these case it's the event that's the focus as separation is by year then month. A table of some sort would allow for sorting, though they are more awkward to edit compared to a list broken into subsections... GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm against the use of tables. The prose format is easier on the eye, and makes for far easier editing too. I tend to disagree with Gwillhickers a little over the formatting of lists. It is inevitable that there will be some variation in editing styles between different editors. Let's each get our chose lists into some kind of shape first. Get the info down, then worry about tweaking for style and appearance. I've made a start on the C18th list now. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not big on tables or boxes for lists either. Lists should be easy to pan through, and bold ship's titles effect this nicely. Same with bold dates of capture. The prose works if it's brief, no more than a sentence, two tops if absolutely necessary. I'm having second thoughts about how to treat sections after looking at Mj's list. Would like to use his format, with the addition of naming major wars, although I'm not keen about seeing 'was captured' spelled out after each and every ship, as the list is about captured ships. Still think bold dates of capture works nicely with the understanding that the date is the date of capture. Need more feedback on bold. It was generically brought up, with not much else said about it regarding lists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Hermes (95); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

More writing, less 'tweaking'

While looking through the List of sloops of war of the United States Navy for an adequate sister image to use in the newly created USS Concord (1828) article I began to encounter one article after another with no inline citations. At first I thought this would be normal for some articles, but as I went from article to article I came to the realization that this was, and is, par for the course. Then I saw something else a little unsettling. Most of the sloop (and sailing frigate) articles (and no doubt others) were lifted from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Even though it's a PD source, folks shouldn't cut and paste text and just leave it as is, and we're still supposed to provide inline cites. I've cut and pasted once before myself, just to rough-in some text but then I build on it with RS's and provide inline cites. (Even got my hand slapped while I was doing it, so I'm not up on some pedestal here, but I had the intention of expanding it and integrating it with other RS's from the start.) You'd think with all the users on a 'mission to clean up' these articles would have been fixed by now. Unfortunately many have been like this for quite some time. Below is dual nav box with a list of the articles that need attention, most of them with zero inline citations and a few with only one or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you being not just a little pedantic? We have the DANFS template for that, and your personal sense of indignation is not going to alter how we view public domain sources. If you are that bothered go fix it, it will probably take less time than your tagging crusade. And by the way, we already have a general cleanup listing that shows all shipping articles missing inline citations, not just your pet ones. Weakopedia (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, cutting and pasting is now discouraged throughout Wikipedia. See WP:PLAGIARISM and the Signpost article that I'm sure is linked there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that the same WP:PLAGIARISM where it says A practice preferred by some Wikipedia editors, when copying in public-domain, or free content, verbatim, is to paste in the content in one edit, with indication in the edit summary of the source of the material. If following this practice, immediately follow up with careful attribution, so that the new material can't be mistaken for your own wording. and where it says Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia or some different one, and if so do you have a link? Weakopedia (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are three bullet points below the sentence you quoted, including one calling for inline citations. Then an example is given of that([1]), which does not actually use inline references for the PD material. Would be a good idea to start a discussion at the talk page and clear that up. My position is that a single template at the bottom is sufficient for articles consisting mostly/entirely of PD material. Yoenit (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think the template sufficient. The example you link to was started with text from a public domain source and was properly attributed when it was created. Let us say someone starts an article with text from DNFAS. Let us say they even reword the whole thing. Do they really have to put a refname dnfas at the end of every sentence or statistic or infobox line? Surely that is why we have the DNFAS template. In a perfect world anyone adding information to the article from other sources would provide references for them, and everything unattributed would be from DNFAS. Maybe this isn't how things are in reality, but isn't the only alternative the refname dnfas? And is this so different from anyone starting a short article from a single source? Surely they will just put a citation at the end, and any subsequent contributor, if adding additional sourced info to the middle of the article, would add their reference, leaving the opening part unattributed. We don't generally cite every sentence in a paragraph we take from PD, do we? Just the paragraph... Weakopedia (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Harumph, it appears we have another case of a guideline contradicting what the community's current thoughts are on an issue (at least AFAIK). Now, Weakopedia, how is that in any way a consistent reference style? Plus, this is Wikipedia. You can't rely on "everything not cited can be attributed to DANFS". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ed17. The DANFS template only notes that some content came from DANFS. While that might be tolerable when DANFS is the only source, once other references are used and inline citations given, then that which is DANFS sourced needs to be accurately noted. And IMHO if it comes to a point where everything is cited to a source other than DANFS, then the DANFS template ought to be removed as it's no longer true (a link to the DANFS page in Ext links instead). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Example of a revision illustrating the issue of a single DANFS cite as material is added is the one I just completed for USS Miantonomah (ACM-13) with a comment in the discussion page. DANFS has often been paraphrased as essentially the entire Wikipedia article in many cases and for many obscure ships that will probably remain the case (though I question the need to replicate the Navy's official history now on line with our potential typos!) for years, if not forever. As more sourced material is added I think we must explicitly cite DANFS where statements of fact require rather than let readers assume. At that time the blanket note needs to be removed. Palmeira (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ed and GL': -- Look down this road a bit. What happens when some one comes along and begins to edit, adding new text and/or deleting PD text within the greater PD text? Esp when someone adds something without citing it. It will appear that this too came from the PD source. -- Best not to cut and paste, period. That way WP doesn't become a PD dumping ground for people too lazy to read / research / write / cite articles and other editors won't have to sort out what is PD and what isn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to look at this in the light of having pd text placed on wikipedia, with the alternative of not having these articles at all. There are many many ships and few editors who work on them. There are thousands of articles on Royal Navy ships, and probably something like 10,000 still to write. Given that there is no pd source for the RN as there is for the USN, the only way to write these is through the long hard slog of research and original creation, hence there is so much still to do. I would be against calling editors lazy, because they chose to import this text quite legitimately and may have done so with the goal of building this encyclopedia. The alternative is thousands upon thousands of redlinks on missing US Navy ships and years and years to go before they had articles. I appreciate you were shocked Gwillhickers, and feel people should do more to rewrite articles that were created this way, but the amount of work is such that people are slow to get around to it, and may have other things they like doing here first. Tagging rarely accelerates clean up processes, the best thing is to fix it yourself. The problem of lacking inline cites is much wider than just the DANFS imported text as well, some users spend their time addressing articles with no sources whatsoever, compared to which the DANFS template provides comparatively good sourcing and attribution. The DANFS template is considered sufficient for now, and is intended to be temporary until the articles are properly sourced, expanded and rewritten, etc. As a final note, can we not have the 'clean up list' of articles below. If it is going to be updated as work progresses (as I assume is the intention) it will keep this discussion from being archived. Alternatively it will not be updated regularly and will thus disappear into the archives. Perhaps a user subpage would be more appropriate? Benea (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are viable and practical alternatives. It doesn't have to be 'PD or none at all' here, and no one is asking to have the DANFS material outright removed. Articles are written (or cut and pasted as the case may be) one at a time and can be dealt with, cited, in that manner. We don't want to encourage someone to dump dozens of cut and pasted articles in one session. Again, what happens when someone comes along and adds text to the PD material and just leaves it with no cite? Are you prepared to watch-list many dozens, hundreds, of these cut and paste jobs, making sure nothing else is inserted under the guise of DANFS? Again -- by allowing cut and pasted material we are paving the road for WP to become a dumping ground for PD text. Btw, I am in the process of fixing these articles, adding bibliographies, RS's and inline cites, and it is no easy task in some cases. No excuse for shortcuts though. Most of the famous/important ships are well written and cited. We should stick to that standard.
As for the location of the nav-box, yes, I have to agree, it will soon get archived so putting it in another location is a good idea. For now we can let it ride to give other members who don't log in every day a chance to see it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a concern about the copy & paste from DANFS, which I've raised before: plagairism. Yes, it's a PD source; that doesn't make it any less plagairism IMO. I consider it unethical, even if legal. (The "attribution" in the first edit IMO is a sop.) I appear to be in the minority on WP (which is, by now, no surprise to me...). I also think uncited material copypasted is a potential problem for anyone relying on WP for information, because it means a user could get nailed for not citing the source. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trek', yes as others and myself have indicated above, there are several issues that cut and pasted text brings up, even if the material is PD. Also, if we're going to allow (which I assume at this point we don't want to) cut and pasted PD text in articles it opens the door to cut and pasting from other WP articles, which are of course PD. And if the whole ball of wax is to be simply cited by one general reference at the bottom of the page it will provide the backdrop for unsourced inserted text, which will then appear to be also cited in this broad-brushed generic manner. No doubt the editors responsible for the 100+ cut/pasted articles had the best of intentions, and again, no one wants to outright remove the PD text, so long as it is fixed in the near future. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Wikipedia articles are not PD, so no that is not allowed. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the pieces are almost nothing except DANFS extract that have been merely reformatted into a "Wiki" look. The generally acceptable standard for long quotes of attributed material is to make it distinctive by italics or indentation. I think the real academic/publishing world would take a very dim view of something simply reformatted from a source and presented with "This article includes text from . . ." as citation. A single cite might suffice outside the academic/publishing world for a pure extract that is clearly marked as a simple copy--until anything is added. Then the precise problem mentioned comes up: Which is DANFS and what is not. I have added some Army history for vessels that were also Navy. Reference notes begin to be a problem when each fact/paragraph then becomes differently sourced. USS Camano (AG-130) is an example of a recent edit in which I added pre-Navy information. The result is a revised lead "History" paragraph with two cites and then two following that are the original DANFS needing a DANFS cite. I am not really comfortable with a simple cite at the end of a paragraph that is not also italicized or indented exact quote as another edit could add material that is not covered by the cite. That could become rather ridiculous if enough information is found to really develop the the thing further. This is a problem that could possibly be solved by making all such exact extract material distinctive. That said, there is some value in having these entries on ships as skeletons as they do provide a framework to which non-DANFS material can be added. Naval History and Heritage Command was working to expand the on-line DANFS, but the focus is very much Navy and often neglects prior or subsequent commercial or other government background for ships, particularly the non-combatants. Palmeira (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That is why the notice says it contains material of (aka, a derivative work) rather than a word for word copy of the material. Yoenit (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who created quite a few of those DANFS-based articles, I can say that at the time (ca 2003) it was still pretty novel to cite any sources at *all* :-) , and inline citations were still some distance in the future. I remember being a little troubled at the time by the possibility of mixed original/DANFS material, but didn't have any ideas about how to solve it. I think it wouldn't be too onerous to add a DANFS cite at the end of each pasted paragraph, then require any additions to those paragraphs to include their own cite, and a DANFS cite glued to the sentence just before the addition, so the extent of DANFS material is clear. Stan (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On the odd occasion I've used DANFS as a source, I've treated it just link any other website and used {{cite web}}. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nav list edit

As articles are fixed, please designate next to ship's name. i.e. USS Ship - Fixed

Tugboat Chickamauga

I recently snapped this photo (in Seattle) of an old tug called Chickamauga. I'm wondering whether anyone knows: is this possibly the tug by that name that was the U.S.'s first diesel tug, and which was later owned by Foss Tug? If so, probably worth an article; if not, does anyone know anything about this boat (when it was built, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[2], [3], and [4] look earlier, and the last one implies that she is still in service but now as "Sea Chicken"? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Agreed: looks unlikely to be that boat. Anyone know anything about this one? - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Media availability

Hello I just returned from Patriots Point and took literally several hundred high res photos of Essex class USS Yorktown CV-10 and taped an end to end walkthrough of USS Clagamore. I have pictures of almost every subsystem on the carrier and even some images of non-accessible places that they hadn't marked very well. I don't work on these pages so much but I'm sure some of the pics will be good for the essex-class article or even one of the more general carrier articles. If some one wants to let me know what articles or sections they think are missing photos I will try and add something appropriate. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably all of your images would be welcome on Commons. There's a Commons:Category:USS_Yorktown_(CV-10). - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we have many photos of the ship's insides, if you aren't willing to upload all of them. Either way, thanks so much for your offer! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, the sections I have good unique imagery of, are things like the catapult room, engine room, galley, bridge. I also have plenty of shots of stuff like the dentist chairs, wardrooms and catwalks, but those are pretty generalized and not really linked to CV-10 in any particular way. I guess my question was more like: do you folks want these images added to aircraft carrier or Essex-class or should it stay on the cv-10 page? And because i'm not likely to find all the pages that need an image of the catapult for example, please let me know when you find them or others like that. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not end up with an extensive gallery of photos. This is precisely the sort of thing that belongs on Wikimedia Commons. Then Wikipedia editors can use the images they find useful. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he/she's asking what photos we think we need for the articles so that he/she can upload them to Commons for us... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to predict what photos we need, because they won't just be used on an article about one ship - a photo of a dentist's chair might be useful in other content about dentistry, or furniture, or naval healthcare, or whatever. If in doubt, put it on commons and I'm sure it will be helpful!

bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Launching of lists

OK, I've got the bare bones in, still a lot of work to do. So far, I've just put the basic facts in. My thoughts are that the entries could be padded out a bit by adding locations and subsequent fate of the vessel. Still a lot of referencing to do here, and I don't have the major works on the subject. Am hoping that the London Gazette will prove a fruitful source of information though. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks nice Mj', yes there is still quite a bit of referencing to do. I have incorporated your decade-section style but have inserted major wars for subsections with a summary style intro per captured ships. For now I am just employing decades and wars for sections/subsections and when the list grows to large enough proportions will add individual years for sub's as needed. I will keep a look out for reference material you can use in my travels. Most of the ref material I have in hard text or in e-reference pertains to the 19th century. -- A word about bold ship's names and/or dates of capture: When scrolling through a long list at a faster pace, these items don't become visually blurred or run together as the text goes by, and when you stop and view a given section of the list this page-theme information is of course visually apparent from the rest of the information, so it seems its use is almost essential as long lists go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to point out that, in the sailing era, the numbers of ships that were captured (both naval and mercantile) run into the thousands. Indeed - excluding ships lost through wrecking or to the effects of the weather - the numbers of ships captured far exceeds the numbers of those actually sunk by hostile action. A considerable number changed hands (i.e. changed owners) several times as a consequence. And of course the majority of those captured were then sold to new owners (even with warships captured by another nation, the usual practice would be for the Navy concerned 'purchasing' that ship in order to establish a value for prize purposes). Rif Winfield (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Flags in the list

The usage of flags in the lists IMHO are beautiful and serve well in inviting the reader into the page. As flag templates go I am still a bit unfamiliar with the ropes here. In particular, the British flags. Regarding the 'color' parameter I was experimenting and noticed that when changing the color it produces a different flag -- using a color besides red or blue or leaving the color parameter out produces the (second to the) last two examples:

({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|red}}) = ( Great Britain)
({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|blue}}) = ( Great Britain)
({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain|white}}) = ( Great Britain) -- (all other colors)
({{flagcountry|Kingdom of Great Britain}}) = ( Great Britain) -- (default / no color parameter)

{{navy|UK}} = Royal Navy

Was just wondering where each of the types are used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, searching around I found out exactly when to use flags for 'Kingdom of England (until 1707)', 'Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800)' and ' United Kingdom (1801–present)' but am still not clear about the red and blue types at the top of the example-list here. Will continue searching. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, quick crash course. Pre 1707 it's England or Scotland (gets a bit complicated in the 1650s with Cromwell's antics!). 1707-1801 it's Kingdom of Great Britain. 1801-1923 it's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (use UKGBI to save on typing). From 1923 it's United Kingdom. Great Britain uses "red" and "blue" for civil and government ships, whereas UKGBI and United Kingdom uses "civil" and "government" for these. For the Royal Navy from 1801 just use {{navy|UK}} as it gives the same image and link as {{navy|UKGBI}} and {{navy|United Kingdom}}. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mj' I noticed that some of the different templates produce the same results/flags:

{{flagcountry|United Kingdom}} = United Kingdom, 1923 - present
{{flagcountry|UKGBI}} = United Kingdom 1801-1923
{{navy|UKGBI}} = Royal Navy 1801-1923
{{navy|UK}} = Royal Navy 1801 - present
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the case, the first two produce a different result. Click on the link to see why. Mjroots (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Captured ship's names

I'm noticing that articles for ships that were captured often use the name given to the ship after its capture. For example HMS Implacable is the name given to the ship after its capture. However, as a HMS vessel it was never captured. It was captured under the name Duguay-Trouin. Listing it with the new name with a British flag gives the reader the impression that it was a British vessel that was captured. So is it acceptable to use the original ship's name linked to the HMS article?

i.e. [[HMS Implacable (1805)|Duguay-Trouin]]

As there is no article using the original captured ship's name it would seem this would be the approach. There are other articles that don't list the original name, just noting that it was once a captured ship by the country that presently owns it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a redirect from French ship Duguay-Trouin (1800), so type {{ship|French ship|Duguay-Trouin|1800|2}} to produce Duguay-Trouin. Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this produces the same result in this case. Is there a way to check to see if a page title has a redirect without going through a trial and error routine? If a lot of these renamed captured ships have the original name as a redirect this would certainly come in handy, but I suspect that's sort of a high hope on both counts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way is trial and error. You may need to creat several redirects where these do not currently exist. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean renaming the article, once, twice and then back to the original name again? I think the link-examples you and I provided will be adequate. As for standard-links v template-links I don't know why the latter is used as its parameter information doesn't materialize and produces a link to the same page.

[[HMS Implacable (1805)|''Duguay-Trouin'']] =Duguay-Trouin
{{ship|French ship|Duguay-Trouin|1800|2}} = Duguay-Trouin

What is the advantage of using the template-link, with all its parameters, over a simple link? They both result in the same appearing link to the same page -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean creating new redirects per WP:R. As for the ship template, in many cases it means less typing to produce the same result. There is no compulsion to use them, just a matter of preference. As long as the link is correct in the end then any way is fine. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and prompt replies. I realize my questions must seem sort of 'basic', but still need to know which rope do what. (Yo,ho,ho..) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm still learning myself. I took the C18th list as I'm not overly familiar with that period, so wanted to stretch myself a bit. I certainly learnt a few more things doing that one.

Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Courageous (50) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona (BB-39)

A request for help: WT:MILHIST#USS Arizona (BB-39). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall class information in individual articles

An editor has added design and construction information to the articles for each ship of the Anzac class but the information is identical in each article so it seems to me it would be better placed in the main class article than the individual ship articles because it's really a class overview, rather than being specific to each ship. Somebody will eventually come along and edit one article and not the others so the information will eventually be different in each article when it should be identical in all ten ship articles. The information is extensive and includes a long list of books,[5] so it's bound to get messy in the future. Adding {{main|Anzac class frigate}} to individual articles, or even transcluding the content from the main article to the individual articles seems a much less messy thing to do. Other projects seem to have no problem with this, but I was wondering what opinions other editors had here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to balance between too much info and not enough. I tend to err on the side of too much, probably, but you need to cover all the info that's in the infobox. The class article should have all that same info, but in more detail. It should also provide some context about the design rationale for the ship and its weapons and electronics suite. Looking at one of the ship articles, I don't think that the editor has added too much basic detail, but it needs to be broken up into paragraphs for easier reading. But maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Sturm, though there's probably some information that can be trimmed from the ship articles. And the information should be split up into topical paragraphs, you don't want to see propulsion system information in the same paragraph as armament. Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including some information in the individual articles but the issue here is that it's exactly the same information, for the moment, across eight articles. Because the information is the same, and because there is an overall class article, there's no need to go into so much detail in the individual articles. All that is required in the ship articles is a {{main}} link to the class article, with some basic information about design (not 600+ words) and most importantly, specific information about the individual ship, such as the Anti-Ship Missile Defence upgrades that were made to HMAS Perth. It's a different situation when there is no class article, but one function of an overall class article, or any overview article regardless of the project, is to avoid unnecessary duplication of content, which is what we have here. The addition of the content has made individual ship articles mostly about design and construction of the entire class. with all of the articles now 2-3 times their previous size. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at most any ship FA - see for instance HMS Lion (1910) and SMS Markgraf (Sturm wrote the former, I wrote the latter), and you'll see that they all incorporate technical information that is also present in the sister ship articles. This is more or less expected by the community. Class and ship articles will always have some overlap - the class article should have a brief summary of the ships' careers, while the ship articles should have a brief summary of the technical information. That the service histories need further development doesn't necessarily mean too much has been put in the design sections. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. If you compare HMS Lion (1910) and HMS Princess Royal (1911),[6] you'll see there are significant differences between the two articles, showing both the appropriate customisation for each article, and the less desirable differences between the two in the aspects that are common, and therefore which should be identical. In some places the differences are contradictory, which is very undesirable. For example, one says "forced a 65% increase in size" while the other says the increase is 70%. If you look at SMS Markgraf and her sister ships, the differences are far fewer.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Most changes deal with the specific ship. The König class battleship articles contain far fewer common facts to mess up and instead the articles use that main link I suggested to König class battleship, where all the common facts are listed. In the Anzac class articles, there is absolutely no difference between articles. There is no customisation and much of the content deals with aspects that are really irrelevant to the ships themselves, such as political disagreements between the Kiwis and Americans (somewhat ironically, the content hasn't even been added to the NZ ship articles) or the inability to replace one type of helicopter with another because of airframe/avionic incompatibility. (The helicopters aren't part of the ships - they fly in when necessary) Considering the significant differences between just two articles on the Lion class ships, imagine the contradictory information bound to creep into the eight (should be ten) Anzac class articles. That's why a considerably briefer article with a main link to the main class article, like the articles of the König class ships, is a lot better. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote both the Lion and Princess Royal articles and most of the differences that I see using your diff are fairly trivial relating to format, etc. Or relate to the differences between the two ships. And, as I said earlier, I like a lot of technical info in my ship articles. If you think that Parsec's König class articles are a better model then by all means use that one; just be sure to cover the basic infobox information. I agree that the individual ship articles should not have much of what you mention as all that sort of thing is better kept for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason the NZ Anzacs haven't been done yet is that there needs to be a different 'set' of text, which I haven't got around to setting up. There have been different post-construction modifications to the Aussie ships, and discussion of the NZ ships would require a summary of the political brouhaha around their acquisition that would be completely irrelevant for the Australian ships. I don't imagine there would be much 'error-creep' into the Anzac articles, as they were built to a standardised modular design in fairly quick succession, have been consistently modernised (within each navy's subset), and, apart from the first-of-the-new-upgrade Perth, are identical as far as the sources are concerned. There will be some variation in prose and layout over time as the articles develop (which is to be expected and is not at all a concern), but the data will remain the same until the sources say otherwise, and I think having all the articles 'start' from the same point makes it less likely that errors will creep into the tech specs. That said, I will make a pass and try to trim off a little detail, and make other tweaks per the comments in this discussion, but I feel that the content I added to the articles allows readers to gain a basic but comprehensive understanding of the design and capabilities of the vessel, along with the events and reasons that led to the vessel's existence, without forcing them to travel elsewhere (although on the flip side of the coin, if/when they check out the class article, there is a lot of detail and additional content not conveyed in here. -- saberwyn 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So here is an opinion from someone outside WikiProject Ships. I am mostly an editor who tweaks articles for consistency - I'm a huge believer in {{convert}} templates and standardized referencing using the {{citation}} family of templates. I have only rarely written anything.

Ship classes and ships are inherently hierarchical. The members of the class share fundamental characteristics but at some level, are also unique. Those things that are unique to a particular ship must be in the ship's own article; class-wide fundamental characteristics belong in the class' own article.

Here we are in the 21st century. When reading a ship's article on Wikipedia, we don't have to get up out of our reading chair, go to the shelf and take down the tome of all ship classes so that we can learn about the class. We click a link. We might even open another copy of the browser, put it on the second monitor, and compare the two articles side by side - all of this in less time than it took me to write this sentence.

As a reader, I very much dislike reading stuff in one article that I've already read in another. It is especially annoying when the thing I'm reading now disagrees with what I read elsewhere. Which is right?

saberwyn doesn't "imagine there would be much 'error-creep'". Perhaps he's right. I think not. These articles will be here long after all of us have departed this good earth. There will always be editors, like me, who will tweak this and that; there will be vandals who will make overt or covert changes. The articles will change. It is the nature of Wikipedia.

I think that saberwyn and Sturmvogel 66 look at each article as though the reader is coming to it in isolation - as if the reader were in his reading chair with the tome of all ships in his lap and the tome of all ship classes on the bookshelf, unopened. In that scenario, yes, summary ship-class information is almost obligatory. But not here, where a link quickly takes the reader the class page.

Sturmvogel 66 urges coverage of "the basic infobox information". I would suggest that the infobox is sufficient summary (and right at the top of General Characteristics: a link to the class). It is pretty obvious to the reader then, where more information can be found.

Parsecboy states that "technical information that is also present in the sister ship articles ... is more or less expected by the community." Really? Which community is that? Does the natural history community expect that each article about a species of spider also contain "technical information" about Arachnida? What about the sports community? The Boston Red Socks is a member of the classes American League East and Professional baseball. Should the Socks article have a section that provides "technical information" about the fundamental characteristics common to members of those classes? No. There are links to the AL East and to Professional baseball. On spider pages, there are links to Arachnida.

Ships and ship classes are distinct and separate entities that deserve distinct and separate articles. Where there is overlap, it should be limited to:

In class articles: a list of ships in the class;
In ship articles: the infobox of general characteristics.

Full stop. (Or should that be: All Stop?)

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is one of those things where we'll have to agree to disagree. But I will note that the requirements for Good Articles require everything to be cited and unless you're willing to spatter the infobox with little blue numbers, any such article as you describe will fail. That may or may not matter to you, but I write almost everything to pass GA standards and I refuse to clutter the infobox with cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Between the two of us, Sturm and I have written about 40 featured articles - we have more experience with what "the community" expects from high-quality articles on ships than just about anyone else on the project. Go over to WT:FAC and ask them if an article structured as you suggest would satisfy FA requirements. As for your examples, you're comparing apples to oranges. Tarantula is to Arachnida as SMS König is to Battleship, not König-class battleship. The relationship between individual ship and class articles is relatively unique; class articles are akin to car types, yet one doesn't write articles on individual cars. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's Herbie or K.I.T.T. of course. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Yeah, I skipped over Order:Araneae (spider) but that doesn't invalidate my point. Of course no one writes about individual cars - The Bushranger's examples excepted - there are far too many of which far too few ever play significant roles in the history of man before they go to the great wrecking yard in the sky. But that doesn't invalidate my point either.

@Sturmvogel 66: I have read WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA. In both places, inline citations are required "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." That means that every little factoid in the infoboxes needn't be tagged with a little blue number. In fact, each Infobox ship career and Infobox ship characteristics template has a Ship notes parameter. The Ship notes parameter might be used like this:

{{Infobox ship characteristics

| Ship name = USS ''Caine''

...

| Ship notes = Source: {{harvtxt|Queeg|1954}}

}}

|}

==References==

{{Cite book |last=Queeg |first=Philip Francis |title=USS ''Caine'' - the true story |publisher=Towline Press |year=1954 | pages=34, 55, 104-110 |ref=harv}}

See USS Natick (YTB-760) for a simple example.

So, all the pertinent general characteristics of the class neatly contained and referenced in the infobox; no redundant data to maintain in both the article and the infoboxes; no need to write some sort of text that makes all of those dry facts and numbers interesting. And you can still add additional references when appropriate. How does this not satisfy WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA?

I am in no way disputing that you-all have written GA or better quality articles. I am suggesting that you, and perhaps the reviewers, view these articles with the eyes of writers and not with the eyes of readers. This reader finds the repeated duplication of information instantly available in the ship-class article unnecessary. Besides, what makes ship articles interesting isn't the technical detail, it's the things that the ship and her crews did under often trying conditions.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed the discussion here that rejected use of the notes field in the infobox for citations. And I'd fail that article if I were reviewing if for GA as I couldn't tell which fact came from which source. What you don't seem to realize is that every fact is challengeable, so everything needs to be cited. One thing that I don't like about writing lists for WP:FLC is that I have to spatter little blue numbers all over the cells for the tables listing ship specifications to cite all the info. See List of battlecruisers of Germany for an example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The documentation for the {{Infobox ship}} family of templates is mute on the subject of the Ship notes parameter. If you-all have come to a determination of the parameter's usage, why is it not in the template's official documentation?

Of course every fact may challenged. But the threshold for citation is "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis mine), not "might one day be challenged." In any case, the challenger bears the burden of proof.

This discussion has drifted rather far afield from the topic and intent of my original post. The community has for the most part declined to comment. Thanks for the conversation. I'll piss-off now, shall I?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One last thought that I neglected to mention. In your List of battlecruisers of Germany article I noticed that in almost (if not every) case, each cell had the same citation number as the ones above and below. Have you thought of using table foot notes like those described in the {{Ref}} template doc?

--Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Category for captured ships

A couple of weeks ago we were discussing a new category for captured ships, but in the process we got involved with lists for captured ships -- all well and good -- but it seems we still don't have a CAT for captured ships. (Has the creation of this CAT(s) occurred yet?) Seems we need a general CAT for captured ships, and CAT's for captured ships by century. Not familiar with the rules and bureaucracy involved with creating CAT's but it seems we need them, esp with the creation of new captured ships lists and others on the horizon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are free to create categories as and when you see fit. The head category Category:Captured ships would be a subcategory of Category:Maritime incidents. Subcats would be by century and sub-sub cats would be by year.

Okay, am somewhat (actually very) green at this particular task. Just created Category: List of captured ships but since there are only two lists, so far, for captured ships I am forgoing the use of any sub-CATs for now, unless there is of course other items and/or issues I am overlooking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created Category:Captured ships, with the list cat above as a subcat of it along with Category:Captured U-boats. Population with articles on ships actually captured desired of course! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am in the process of listing captured ships articles in this category now. Seems we might need to give sub'CATs by century to this category somewhere down the line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly - by century might be the best bet? (Although "by capturing navy" could work...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It would of course be Category: Lists of captured ships. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Flushing Range

Should not Flushing Range belong in the MS Herald of Free Enterprise article? I think it does but am not sure how to preserve the edit history. Brad (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We could do a histmerge? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just merge and redirect? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we just suggested the same thing? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean just merging the content the normal way as opposed to a histmerge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Benea! Brad (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles collecting dust

Okay, I don't know if I'm gonna win a lot of friends with this write up -- but here goes. I can only hope it is received in the spirit it is given.

Some ten days ago I began building the List of ships captured in the 19th century. As I searched through the other lists and articles for captured ships I was disappointed to see the amount of views they were getting. While famous ships get upwards of more than a 1000 views a day, the average ship article I am afraid to say only gets 1, 2, 5, 10 views. Some pages get maybe 30 views a day but this is not very common and only because they have been recently 'tweaked' in many cases. Even more disappointing is that on average, about half of these articles are tagged for no inline citations -- and have been this way for some time. Yet looking at their edit histories, I see the same editors names, where all that is done is the usual tweaking and fussing over menial items while the article remains neglected in its content -- that which is most important to the readers. This is because for every one writer there are dozens of editors whose primary involvement is simply tweaking. Look at their contrib's I can see that too often that this is their primary involvement here at WP . They hop from one article to another tweak this, fuss over that, and leave the pages neglected, in need of more content and more citations. In an effort to bring more exposure and hence more writers into the fold I began "spamming" two different lists of captured ships into articles of captured ships, because as I mentioned earlier, most readers who come to WP don't even know these articles exist, moreover, they don't even know the lists for ships exist either. -- i.e.DYK that the French ship Fougueux fired the first shot at the famous naval Battle of Trafalgar -- yet out of the millions of readers who come to WP every day even this ship's page only gets an average of five-ten views a day??
ALL ships lists need to be brought into the appropriate pages. i.e.Lists of 'xxx frigates' for articles about 'xxx frigates', etc, etc. Out of the many 1000's of ships articles, virtually none of them have a list of ships in See also, or anywhere, for that matter, until just recently. What good are these lists if the only ones who know about them overall are us editors? I threw together a short list of ships articles that link to the ship's view stat's. Admittingly I cherry picked ship's articles that had 10 or less views a day -- but it wasn't difficult finding them, at all, as again, most ships articles are only viewed by the editors who tweak them from time to time. I am hoping editors, esp the senior editors some of whom hover over their favorite pages with an iron hammer, to rethink the purpose of 'See also', and linking in general. Links are the only way most of the ships articles will ever get read. Pages of famous ships with high numbers of views a day should function also as a means of bringing readers, and writers, to the many other pages that are in dire need of attention. I am done putting ships lists in 'See also' for now and only hope that other editors will begin to bring the many ships articles into the light of day, somehow. I think putting the appropriate ship's lists in 'See also' is a good way to do this. If there is another way I'd not only like to hear about it -- I'd love to see it actually begin to happen.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's gotten better recently, but for many years, stats.grok.se was unreliable, reporting almost no hits for some WP: and WT: pages that had lots of traffic. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of speaking disparagingly of editors who merely fuss and tweak rather than attend to content and citation issues, see Wikipedia:WikiGnome for an alternative viewpoint. We all choose to contribute in different ways, if you are a content creator, good for you. But others are not, and do not deserve to be dismissed as 'all too often' just 'fussing' over articles. They are bringing useful edits to the project as well. And while seeking to increase the number of page views an article gets is laudable, it should only be through making relevant internal links, and by being selective in the use of see alsos. I appreciate you have a lot of enthusiasm but please try to consider other editor's views and how they may choose to contribute differently to you. If you want to make these articles more widely read, a good place would be start raising the standard of the articles to B class or better, so ships are linked in the bodies of every sort of article, such as other ships, biographies, battles, etc, than by developing ever longer lists of see alsos.Benea (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fussing and tweaking are needed, but that is not all. And improving the article's content and citations will not by itself bring the pages to the readers. As for 'See also', many pages don't even have such a section, those that do maybe have a couple of links. And all of us work behind the scenes . No one signs their (user) name to the articles, and even if they did, who's gonna know who you are anyway? Besides, most readers don't look into page history. Let me add (insert) that I have learned a lot and have been helped a great deal from many tweakers. Again, please accept the above in the spirit it was given. Also, how do you bring a list of ships into the body of the text? If you have any other ideas other than what not to do with 'See also' that would be nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the brouhaha recently about see-also sections in aircraft articles, I'd advise caution! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to whisper.

I can appreciate being selective about what is put in 'See also'. If the article is about a US battleship it would be nice to see a link to a list of US battleships there. It would bring a broader understanding of these ships in general because of the variety and many more readers to these pages. Two solid reasons, at least. Too many articles are being neglected because most readers and potential contributors don't even know they exist. With a list they are made aware of hundreds of ship's articles with one click -- provided they have something to click on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

CfD discussions that may interest the project can be found here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting the articles to the average reader

Navboxes work as well as see also sections in some instances, such as {{Empire A ships}}. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's actually how I prefer to link to lists. See for instance Template:Admiral Hipper class cruiser, which links all of the articles and the relevant list together. The class article has Template:German heavy cruisers, which links the different classes with the heavy cruiser and the general list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nav-boxes would work, however many editors/contributors may be somewhat reluctant trying to edit and add new ships or lists (assuming they even know about them) given all the sections and complexities some of these nav-boxes have -- and many lists already exist.
Lists or boxes as the case may be, the important issue here is bringing these ships articles to the average reader, as they have no practical way of knowing these articles exist without hunting around or stumbling over them by chance, which accounts for the (very) low numbers of views most of these ship's pages receive. One of the best ways to do this is to have these lists/boxes/links on pages that get a lot of traffic. These pages could serve as the 'Mothership' to the lesser known ship's articles. i.e. For articles of battleships, a list or nav-box of battleships would introduce many such ship's articles to the average reader. Also, it seems Lists of ships and other such lists of lists should be linked to whenever possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also the links to Boxes or Lists should be plainly visible and not buried in the text somewhere.

Thanks for the observations Gwillhickers, but I must echo the sentiments of Benea when he said that different users contribute in different ways and we shouldn't disparage those who primarily contribute through formatting corrections. Yes, more content and more sources are desperately needed - heck, more ship articles themselves - but these are all longterm goals that are going to take years to reach, so there is no point getting too concerned about it at this point.

With regard to the low page hits on most ship articles, the reality is that there are never going to be many people who are interested in the overwhelming majority of ships, simply because it's a highly specialized field of interest. We can have a goal of increasing the exposure of ship articles, but again, it's going to be very much a longterm process. Just slapping long "See also" sections is not going to do the job, and indeed many people object to these sections altogether. What we need to do IMO is find ways to present quality content in ways that intrigue and interest the reader without distracting him and without violating policies like UNDUE. It's a difficult balance to get right and again, there are no shortcuts. Gatoclass (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing against the tweakers, again, tweaking is needed, but again, it seems for every dozen tweakers there is only one editor doing serious writing and citing. This is what the readers comes to WP for. To read. Most don't even know or care about what gets formatted or tweaked. Just trying to get more editors to spend more time writing and citing. This is what is needed the most. What good is a perfectly tweaked article if it's almost empty or lacking info and cites? As for interest in ships, there is quite a lot of people interested in ships altogether. The page views for famous ships will attest to that. Famous ships articles get read because they are famous. Others will get read if the reader can at least find them. As for "slapping long See also", this is not what I was advocating. We need a balance between long 'See alsos' -- and none at all. One ship's list linked there, or somewhere, would again bring more readers, and contributors into the fold. Any ideas other than what not to do are needed here. Long terms goals are reached by taking definite steps in that direction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

One of our most viewed ship articles in RMS Titanic, famous for sinking on her maiden voyage. But she wasn't the only ship to do so, and I'd like to think that readers who spot the {{Maiden voyage sinkings}} also check out the stories behind the losses of the many other ships lost on their maiden voyage. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO that would be better as a category than a navbox. There are a surprising number of ships that sank on their maiden voyage and that navbox is eventually going to get too large. I prefer to see navboxes preserved for more specific categories, like ship classes and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason why a category cannot be created. IMHO, readers are less likely to navigate by categories than editors are. The aim of the navbox is to make it easy for readers to navigate between articles with a common link. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't put every category into a navbox. You have to use some discretion over what you choose to highlight in a navbox. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mj' is right that the average reader doesn't use categories, while Gato' also makes a good point that we can't be putting too may different CAT's into a navbox -- so it would seem that a list is the way to go when it comes to dealing with a large number of e.g.ships in a given category. Lists are more friendly to the average reader as they're easier to read and can be expanded to considerable lengths without fussing with items like group1, list1, group2, list2, etc3, etc4, etc5 ... Just section them off by year, or decade, or what-have-you and just add the ships accordingly -- while the whole ball of wax fits neatly into a link. Since we already have many lists (collecting dust) it would seem that in the effort to get the articles to the readers, these lists, along with the appropriate navboxes need more exposure. I believe that should be our primary focus. More exposure. Much more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are kidding yourself if you think adding lists to pages is going to change the number of page hits in any substantial way. And who decides which lists to add? Better to leave these lists in the categories section where they belong. Gatoclass (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, articles of battleships would get lists of battleships, articles of sloops would get lists of sloops, articles of sailing frigates would get lists of sailing frigates, etc. If a reader is already reading about and is interested in a ship and sees the list, what makes you think he or she is not going to look into other ships? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIR has a reccomended 'see also' section - related types, comparable types (debatable sometimes...), relevant lists, and 'general see also' in that order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of a see also is not, and never has been, 'if you enjoyed this article, you might enjoy these too.' And it is not the point of any wikipedia article to be intentionally trying to boost page viewings of other articles, and certainly not the case that popular articles like Titanic should be carrying extra links solely because they are popular. If you want to make more links to articles so they get read more often, pick an article, improve it and add maybe 20 in-text links to other ships, to places, people, battles, etc. And then the reader will have valid and contextualised links and will be able, if they so choose, to click on them and see more details on who this commander was, what this ship was doing when it wasn't in company with the ship the article was about, more details on what this battle was. That is the whole point of the internal links. Benea (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Benea: adding relevant in-text links is generally the best approach. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, adding in line links has always been done, and additional efforts here should be made, but as you can see, this by itself is not getting the hundreds of rarely-read ships articles out to the readers. Even ships involved in famous battles are rarely getting read. A list or nav box in see also, (or somewhere) will at least let the readers know these ships exist and MOS allows for it. As for lists being in a category "where they belong", what are you (Gatoclass) saying exactly? Are you citing WP policy? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)