Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ships and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Ships Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Ships was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 June 2010. |
Main Project Page Talk |
---|
Things you can do |
|
Information and sources |
|
Those articles on individual New York fireboats that have an infobox vary as to which flag they display as an ensign. Some have the blue flag that bears the coat of arms of New York. Others have the tricolor of New York City. Abram S. Hewitt and Zophar Mills have both the stars and stripes, and the flag bearing the coat of arms of New York, side by side. Are they all correct? What flag to New York fireboats really fly as their ensign? Motacilla (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- So far as I can see, all the NY firefloats illustrated in Commons that are flying an ensign, that is, at or above the stern, are showing only the Stars & Stripes, which is what I would expect. Other flags or bow pennants may also be flown. - Davidships (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RMS_Britannia&diff=prev&oldid=1212253766 (and others)
See also User_talk:Juanpumpchump#Ship_prefixes
Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- As you have noted, I tried to explain last week why these removals are unhelpful and contrary to the current consensus. After professing that they were not interested in an edit war, I thought thay were calling a halt to this mission, but noticed that it has been resumed today. Now affects 34 articles and counting. - Davidships (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen three editors reverting these. I see no justification for any of them, Juanpumpchump has given none other than 'it's not painted on the stern'. So I'd support a bulk rollback across the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that prefix should appear in prose at first appropriate point so support mass rollback of Juanpumpchumps edits. No knowledge on appropriateness of user name (sheltered life and not googling) Lyndaship (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is pretty unimpressive, as is the lack of any reply here, so I've rolled them back to December. Although there are probably more, if anyone else wants to take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- User seems to have chosen not to continue since the roll-back. Thanks. No response on user name, though. - Davidships (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Like Lyndaship (talk · contribs) I must have lead a sheltered life, I can't see the inuendo. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lusitania#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Davidships (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a bit of publicity for {{Nautical term}}. If you do need to link to a definition in either section of Glossary of nautical terms it saves a bit of work doing so. I hadn't realised how useful this template is in general article use until yesterday. (The template was created by User:Pbsouthwood.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Brilliant! Thanks for letting us know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Contributors to Wikipedia differ as to how much white space they like to have "behind the scenes" in infoboxes, invisible to people reading the articles. Some of us like to minimise it. Others like to align all the equals signs in a column, with varying amounts of white space to the left of them. And there are other personal preferences: whether or not to have one empty space either side of each equals sign, or to the right of each vertical bar. Readers of Wikipedia see none of this; it is purely a matter between contributors.
I thought that a few years ago, a discussion arose because some contributors were changing infoboxes from one style to another. I thought I saw that discussion reach a conclusion to the effect that whichever style was adopted by whoever either created the article or added the infobox, and as long as that style was consistent, other contributors would not change it. However, I have now searched for that discussion in order to refer to it and refresh my memory, and I have failed to find it. I have searched the archive of WP:SHIPS, and the archive of WT:MOSIBX, trying various search terms, but thus far I have drawn a blank.
I do not want to either break this consensus, recall it incorrectly, or misrepresent it to other contributors. If any of you recall this discussion, and know where to find it, I would be grateful for your help. Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is relevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t recall any discussions here on this issue (though that doesn’t meant it didn’t happen, of course), but that seems to be a reasonable attitude to take. And the guideline Murgatroyd linked seems to support that, only stating that it “can be helpful”. My take would be, go ahead and edit an infobox as you like, but if someone objects, best to let it slide. I have my own preferences for how an infobox should be laid out, but I don’t generally worry if someone alters a box in an article I wrote. Parsecboy (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've found it a nuisance when using AWB and insource to change things that you have ship something(space)=text, ship something(space)=(space)text, ship something=text, ship something=(space)text and then ship something(multiple spaces)=text. Appreciate that wiki allows editors to do how they think best but as the template uses ship something= I think we should prefer that and change as and when Lyndaship (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thankyou all for your helpful replies. I am sure that I saw this topic discussed a few years ago, but your replies make me suspect that the discussion may have been in a broader WP forum, and not specifically confined to WP:SHIPS contributors. To take one extreme, if one laid out a ship's infobox without a line break between each parameter, it would (I assume) still display correctly. But it would be harder for editors to navigate, and gratuitously annoying!
- If anyone else can recall this being discussed a few years ago, whether a consensus was reached, and if so, what that consensus was, I would be most grateful. Motacilla (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Today is the anniversary of an incident in 1915 when the Castillo San Felipe del Morro in Puerto Rico fired at the Hamburg America Line ship Odenwald. In 1917 the ship became USS Newport News (AK-3). I have just revised and expanded that article to include more of her history.
I apologise for adding ambiguity to that article, concerning the size of gun(s) that the Morro fired at Odenwald, and how many shots were fired. The sources on which I drew variously claim the guns were "five-inch", "seven-inch", and "4.7 inch". And the number of shots reported to have been fired ranges from one to 58! By the editorial principles of verifiability and neutrality I have included rival claims, although I am sure that some of them must be incorrect.
Am I right in suspecting that the Morro had only one size of heavy artillery in 1915? There should be reliable records as to what it was, but I have no idea where to search for them. I would be grateful to any colleague who can resolve this uncertainty, to enable the relevant section of the USS Newport News (AK-3) article to be made that much simpler and more precise.
Thankyou! Motacilla (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a castle could have a variety of guns of different calibres. They were often replaced and upgraded on an ad-hoc basis when necessary. So it is feasible that all the sources are correct! Though I seriously doubt that more than one or two shots were actually fired. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Our QF 4.7-inch Mk I – IV naval gun#United States service article suggests that 4.7-inch guns were only deployed there when the USA entered the war in 1917. Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This image's title says it is the FNV Patria, while the image description says it is the FNV Victoria. Patria was HMCS Oakville, while Victoria was HMCS Wetaskiwin. We can see in this image a pennant of "PA" while in another image (supposedly of Victoria) a pennant of "VI". Did the Venezuelan navy use a pennant system that copied the ship name? If so, that would indicate "PA" is more likely to be Patria. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- These aren't the pennant numbers (Patria was C 13 and Victoria C 11) but the image of Victoria is from Jane's Fighting Ships which does identify the ship as such. I think it likely that you're correct and the image uploader has copy pasted the same image description twice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thanks for that. Which edition of Jane's Fighting Ships did you find the Victoria photo in? It would be useful to add evidence of publication to the file description. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The image description on commons says it was 1950, therefore out of copyright. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is still useful to add publication information (when available) as it provides a more complete record for reusers. As a comparison, we don't say to remove historic information from Wikidpedia articles because it is old. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- This volume has the image. I haven't checked earlier ones so it might be there also. The caption states that it was taken by the Venezuelan Navy in 1953. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is still useful to add publication information (when available) as it provides a more complete record for reusers. As a comparison, we don't say to remove historic information from Wikidpedia articles because it is old. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The image description on commons says it was 1950, therefore out of copyright. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thanks for that. Which edition of Jane's Fighting Ships did you find the Victoria photo in? It would be useful to add evidence of publication to the file description. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The Elisabeth Smit article has been nominated for deletion. I've done my best to expand from a stub using internet sources. There are plenty of book sources listed at MMS class minesweeper#Bibliography which might prove useful for expanding the article, if anyone has them. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
MV Dali (2015) is the ship involved in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. Currently a redirect, but probably notable enough for an article if anyone wants to write one. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)