Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

East African railways and their ferries

Copied from WT:TWP by Mjroots (talk)
I've created articles for Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbours and the East African ferries MV Kabalega, MV Pemba, MV Uhuru, MV Victoria, PS Lugard II, PS Speke, SS Robert Coryndon, SS Rusinga and SS Usoga. I've also revised and expanded articles for the Uganda Railway, East African Railways and Harbours Corporation, Uganda Railways Corporation, MV Kaawa and MV Umoja.

However, the Kaawa, Kabalega and Pemba articles still lack a lot of basic technical data. I have been unable to find out what company in what country built them, at what dates and what their yard numbers, dimensions and tonnages are. There are also remarkably disparate claims as to how many railway wagons each ferry can carry – although of course this may depend on the length of the wagons.

The Uganda Railway also had paddle steamers called PS Stanley (1910) and PS Grant (1925) that I think plied the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga and PS Lugard (1927) that plied the Albert Nile until Lugard II replaced her. Unfortunately I've been unable to find enough material online to create articles for any of these ships, so I would be grateful for any help in this direction. Motacilla (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

MV Anne Scan

Would someone with a subscription to Miramar please check the former names of MV Anne Scan are correct. I've had a query on my talk page but am unable to answer definitively as I don't have a subscription to Miramar, which was free access when I made the edit in question. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes

As part of the RFC on the use of flags in infoboxes, it's been suggested at WT:MOSICON that the various sections of {{infobox ship}} be made so that they can be collapsed. This feature may be useful where an infobox is relatively long compared to the article. Therefore I'm raising it here for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If infobox sections need collapsing then perhaps people are putting too much into them. Any specific instances of bloated infoboxes? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of putting too much into them, but utilising them fully. Some ships have a long career with a succession of owners, operators and flags. Their lengths and tonnages may change. Class may change, as may armaments, passenger capacity etc, etc. All of which goes to make infoboxes longer. I try to keep infoboxes as short as possible, such as that on the SS Polar Chief article, rather than use the multiple infobox approach as on SS Burgondier. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing boxes was discussed once before without resolution. Brad (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that one. Maybe this time we'll get more input by discussing it at WP level. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment will be the same in this discussion as in the last. I'm opposed to it. I don't see any need for it, most infoboxes are not that long and even where they are longer than the accompanying text, it's rarely if ever to an unacceptable degree. Gatoclass (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The only collapse option I would agree to is one where the reader can collapse if they choose to. Default collapse is not acceptable. Brad (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All these sophisticated features (e.g. collapsible menus and boxes) appeal to a certain type of editor, but they make it very difficult for ordinary readers. Why do we need them? I don't think we do.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brad's and Toddy's comments above. Default collapsed would hide information and I just don't think most people bother with expanding the hidden sections. The information should be out there and instantly readable. —Diiscool (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say to make it default collapsed. I said to have an option to collapse. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

The USS Weeks (DE-285) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this WP:SHIPS have project-specific Barnstars?

Just a curious question. Most of the other projects I have been involved with have created Barnstars or other awards to recognise significant user contribution. I can't see any, but what generally happens with this project? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Ships Barnstar}} There ya go. Brad (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol, thanks Brad, I didn't see that. Just the one simple one then. Any objections if I create an alternative ships barnstar in addition to this one when I get time? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued, what is a complicated barnstar then. ;) What would a new one be needed for/achieve that the current one doesn't? Woody (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A complicated barnstar? One with pretty colours and a nice image. I don't know really ;) Many projects usually have 2/3 barnstars so that users can choose one based on the design they like, or the exact applicability within the project. For example; I was thinking of creating 2 Barnstars specific to good work done for Royal Navy and US Navy ship articles respectively. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current barnstar either though, ;) Still it might be nice to have a choice and encourage/reward good work done. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The original conversation on the barnstar was in late 2007. There were many different logo designs suggested but the #13 won the vote. Brad (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ships sidebar

Antarctic-adventurer can you tell us exactly what your plans are for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/sidebar ? I see a lot of changes but no apparent direction. This is something that should be discussed. Brad (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad, thanks for your message. Apologies if I jumped the gun on discussion. I tend to be pro-active-ish for things that are not major changes. After all, anything can be reversed and we can't 'break' WP. Basically as you can see I added a project overview at the top. Many projects have them and it added some items that I found rather hard to find. They were all buried somewhere underneath everything. It provides a general overview which I think is useful. Others may disagree of course. I wasn't planning on making anymore changes. Best wishes Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes required to Infobox_ship

Template_talk:Infobox_ship_begin/doc#Change_to_comply_with_WP:WORDPRECEDENT. Please discuss one the template talk page Gnevin (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ships members willing to assist with subscription webites

There are a number of websites that are subscription only, or part-subscription, which are useful for researching ship-related articles. These include Miramar and Wrecksite to name but two.

Are there any WP:SHIPS members who have subscriptions to such websites that are willing to be listed on the Sources page as willing to respond to requests for information from those websites? Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Titanic template

I've been working on a new template for all of the topics related to Titanic. The draft is in my user space. I've assembled all of the topics together but I believe that some cosmetic work is in order. I think the listed memorials by country needs some fixing up. If you have any solutions feel free to edit in my space. Brad (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This would replace most of the existing templates at the bottom of the article? There do seem to rather a lot. Appreance-wise it looks fine GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This new template would replace {{Titanic officers}}, {{Titanic on film and TV}} and {{Titanic memorials}}. Plus it adds navigation to all of the sub-articles which wasn't available before. Brad (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it cover the efforts to recreate the Titanic? I don't think every one of those articles were deleted. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The article name was Replica Titanic which I will add. Also found {{Titanic last survivors}} so will add that in too. Brad (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

World War I naval arms race

Hello,

A link bring me to this article (World War I naval arms race). I would like to translate it in French, but some sentences have been marked as "dubious" and some datas in the table are differents from others sources. On the French article fr:Histoire de la Royal Navy, in 1914, the Royal Navy 2,700,000 t of boats, far ahead from the 1,380,000 tons of the Kaiserliche Marine. In the "World War I naval arms race", we have 2,205,000 tons for the British and 1,019,000 tons pour the Germans. Who is right? Thanks in advance for your help. Skiff (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The table in World War I naval arms race seems to be about tonnage of large ships. Other sources may count all naval ships. (There are further possibilities for variation - do you count civilian vessels taken into naval service? Training ships, hospital ships, and oilers? Warships which were on trial / under repair at a certain date, but not operational?)

Also, tonnage will have changed during the war because shipyards were very busy, and vessels were lost to combat and mines &c - that alone could make significant changes to tonnage over the course of a few months. Simply specifying a year is not enough - maybe it would be better to specify a month, and how the tonnage was calculated. bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would not bother translating the article if I were you. You would be better off reading books and writing a new one.

• The article is poor. It is mostly uncited, and the 'citation' [1] is a webpage that does not contain some of the information it is used as a source for.

• Some statements are labelled 'dubious' because they are. There was not much of a German challenge to the Royal Navy in 1903, and any admirals who claimed there was were not being honest. Nor is it very obvious that a naval arms race was a factor in Britain joining a Russo-French alliance against Germany, Austria and Italy. The submarine policy was not as stated.

• Regarding the table - it seems unlikely that the data is for the tonnage. It is probably some measure of displacement, wrongly labelled. The reference to Feguson (1999) is probably a reference to The Pity of War, by Niall Ferguson. You could check the reference. I think the best thing to do would be to recalculate the table. In any case for an arms race you need to show change over time - I did something like that for another time period - see Prince_Consort class battleship#Reasons for the conversion programme.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur; don't bother translating the article. Indeed there is a case we shouldn't have it here. It is certainly mistitled and many of the "facts" are dubious. The table is taken from Ferguson's "The Pity of War", he in turn cites the German Official History - so to understand what is meant by the headings you need to look at that. The Land (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I will no translate it, you are right the article is too poor at the moment without accurate sources. I will try to find other sources, but the problem is that I have very few time to do it. Thanks and Regards, Skiff (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Help: Book:Battlecruiser Omnibus

I've no idea what exactly this is supposed to be, but if any of you can make sense of it, could you give it some structure? Perhaps something like Book:American Carriers? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise for Book:Torpedo boat omnibus, Book:Predreadnought, Book:Predb, and Book:WikiBC. These were all created by User:Wfzimmerman. I'm very tempted to userfy them all. Opinions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

None of those make any sense to me either. What is the normal procedure for things like this? Delete? Brad (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well for deletion there's BPROD (works like PROD) or MFD. If they are salvageable, then I guess it's just a matter of editing the books and giving them a structure / more defined scope.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright well I've userfied the books. That should take care of things for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ships by name

Category:Ships by name has been nominated for deletion along with the sub-categories for ships named Nautilus, Valiant and Enterprise. Please contribute there. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Victims of ship disasters

My interpretation of WP:Memorial is that lists of victims of accidents etc are not encyclopedic, but I wanted to check before I addressed the situation in Lucy Walker steamboat disaster. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could interpret WP:Memorial as you have. Looking at Lucy Walker steamboat disaster I can't see what the two sections in question really add to the article. —Diiscool (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only that but I fail to see the point in describing a knife attack that happened before one of the passengers was even involved in the circumstances of the Lucy Walker. Brad (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall excise the fine detail, and leave the generalties of the victims. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of flagicons in infoboxes again

The use of a flagicon in a ship article infobox has been brought up at the GAR for RMS Magdalena (1948). I've reverted the removal of the flagicon.

Another issue brought up there is the lack of a page number for a book source. Anyone have a copy of Mitchell & Sawyers The Empire Ships that could provide a page number please? Mjroots (talk)

There's an effort by some people to remove all uses of flags in Wikipedia, or all uses in infoboxes; concomitant with that was the effort to delete the flag templates. See MOS:FLAG's discussion page. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Warship International

I notice that this source is mentioned relatively often on Wikipedia (130+ articles), but there is no article on it. It would be nice if someone could take a look at it and create the article on this publication. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide may be of help. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar (barque)

Requesting assistance with a ship stub. Thanks in advance, I appreciate any and all help! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:KillerChihuahua. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put a bit of work in. Unfortunately some of the data is from foreign Wikis, and since they are unreferenced, the referencing isn't what it might be. Nevertheless, an improvement, I hope. Shem (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Huge improvement!!! I was offline yesterday, and came back online and find the article has magically transformed into an actual article from my pathetic stub. You guys are amazing.

I also found that the sourcing is difficult, but will continue to keep my eyes open and hopefully be able to add more and expand the article as time goes by. Thank you all again!! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There's still room for further improvement, per the suggestions I made on your talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Louie

There is a new article about former jackup rig Mr. Louie. Although this was a historical and notable vessel now transformed into oil platform, a lot of necessary information is still missing. Any assistance is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Navbox template for French Line ships

Was kind of surprised to find out that there is no template for French Line ships similar to those of Cunard Line ({{Cunard ships}}) and White Star Line ({{White Star Line ships}}). I am not the best person to ask about what should be included on that template, but it does certainly seem like it would be quite worthwhile to have. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So fix it then! {{BR Class 99}} is probably a better template to base it on. If you want a name, {{CGT ships}} would be a good start. The important thing to remember is that the entry in the |name= field must be the same as the title of the template. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

German reader needed please

From this source, L.ü.a is Length Overall, B.ü.a is Beam, but what about RT, SH and Tfg? I need a translation of these so that the relevant info can be added to the MV Admiral Ushakov article. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to work out Tfg as draught. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RT could be Registertonne, the others I'll await a German speaker. —Diiscool (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GRT, NRT and DWT are all listed, and it's a measurement of distance, not tonnage. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RT must be "Raumtiefe" (Depth of Hold). —Diiscool (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And I think SH is "Seitenhöhe" (Side Height). See here on German Wikipedia. —Diiscool (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, SH = depth then. That makes sense. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm member of the de:wp - Portal:Schifffahrt. Looks like i'm late here today, you got your answers already. By the way, RT is mainly used for Registertonne, but sometimes for Raumtiefe as well. Brgds, --SteKrueBe (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Mapping the Russian Fleet

Hello I apologise from the outset if i'm using the wrong message board or place to communicate my message which is just a very broad enquiry. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor having just made this account for the purpose of making this enquiry. I am really just someone was has benefitted greatly in the past as a wikipedia user when doing researches and wondered if I might contribute in future ? I received an email from an existing editor suggesting that this was the place to ask as a proposal ?

About 6 months ago, when I discoverd that the current resolution of the Keyhole Satellite photo-imagery used by Google Earth mapping, was now really good enough to locate and accurately identify individual vessels (or at least vessel types) at all the principal Russian Naval ports[I have had past professional experience in this area] , I thought that it'd be an interesting exercise to create a keyhole data file ('.kmz') identifying all the warships in the modern Russian fleet (which could be so identified) with GE place marks - so that if reading up about either a particular vessel or at least squadron, or vessel class etc. I could then locate its latest clear'ish' image on GE at its home port, or in reverse could discover information about the particular vessel I was looking at in the GE image.

Several friends, with whom I've shared the file, equally also interested in the topic of fleet deployments as a purely innocent exercise in naval interests & mapping have suggested that it would be very useful if this locational detail could be added as either just searchable earth co-ordinates at least or a 'clikable data source file' - to the respective current Wikipaedia articles dealing with the corresponding vessels/squadron/units etc.

Could this be done ? If so would it be helpful ? I realise of course that this is much more of interest to researchers into current modern naval deployment matters, rather than 'military history' as such. So if this is not your area of interest, my apologies again and might you point me in the right direction ? Thank you.

PS by way of an example I've added the kind of information that I'm talking about under the reference to Russian fleet versions of the Zubr Class Hovercraft @ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zubr_class_LCAC.

John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello John. Thank you for your proposal and welcome to Wikipedia Ships and to Wikipedia. Your idea is an interesting one, and certainly has potential. I am broadly in favour of the idea but I have several comments/questions:

• Firstly, it is my understanding that the keyhole imagery that Google uses is updated from time to time? This would mean that every so often someone would have to update the links, removing those that were no longer there. Are you aware of this?
• Secondly, for ships in which there are many vessels in the class, how would you go about identifying an individual vessel? Otherwise we will just have an image of "An Arleigh Burke DDG" with no information as to which vessel it is. (Might be useful in the class article perhaps in that case).
• Thirdly, I took a look at the links you added to the Zubr class. It looks good, although I think that perhaps that kind of reference would normally be placed in the 'external links' section of the article rather than embedded with the text. Others here with more experience with the project will no doubt be forthcoming with their opinions shortly.

Thanks again for your suggestion and welcome to WP Ships. Sincerely, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AA for your kind response.

Keeping things brief I'll address your points as best as I'm able.

(i) Yes the GE imagery is updated "from time-to-time" but not as often as you might imagine or GE might advertise ? In fact, my experience is that a particular location can typically take anywhere from 3-5 yrs to get updated, priority being given to, improving resolution where it is currently still very low. Finding an image with a resolution less than 5-10m in a particular Russian location usually requires skipping through several previous or historical satellite pass images, before landing on something useable. It's not like a Us or European city usually now down @ 2.5m or better. Hence, any particular 'link' of dated co-ordinates is likely to remain useful for some considerable time. Of course, the intention is not really to indicate where the particular vessel is at any given moment (they move you know)- but rather to indicate where the 'home port' or usual berth is.

(ii)Where typically, indeed inevitably, ships are of the same class in the same squadron or division then, as you say, it is next to impossible to specifically identify any one plan view image as any one vessel, hence at least to begin with perhaps just a global squadron/division home-berth place mark is what I had in mind. That said it is surprising just how much ground photography (as in local camera pictures) are accessible through 'Panoramio' etc permitting exact location finding when coupled together with identifiable 'hull numbers', which are all available at http://russian-ships.info/eng/

(iii) Thanks for your advice on where to place links, again I'm only a novice trying to learn fast.

May I conclude by saying that the Mikhail Lukin article I cited is only one of several potential reference sources which I have used when doing this project to identify the locations for pretty much every warship in the modern Russian fleet, and so I would hope that if this location information were deemed acceptable to add, that it may indeed stimulate others to check it critically and update as needed, and indeed encourage others still to extend the idea to other naval fleets beyond just 'мать Россия'. I'll stop here and await further comment ?

PS sorry for delay - it took me forever to learn how to do the indenting correctly ?!?! John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By way of a small further example as how a whole class of vessels might benefit, I've simply added locational co-ordinates as appropriate, to the four active examples of Atlant/Slava Class Guided Missile Cruisers in the Russian Navy as featured in the 'units' table at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Slava_class_cruiser

John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for getting back to us. How did you identify each vessel in the Slava class cruiser GPS links that you added? The images are definitely Slava class vessels, but I don't see anyway to confirm them individually? One problem that I can potentially see occurring here that is undertaking original research isn't acceptable at Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia relies on printed sources to add information to articles. I will defer on that one though to someone with more knowledge than I in that area for a definitive answer. Good images you have found though! There is much to learn at Wikipedia, and it can be quite addictive once you get the hang of it. If you are interested in warships and military history there is still much to be added to the encyclopedia in that area so all hands on deck are very much welcome. A lot of the questions you may be having at the moment are covered in the "missing manual" to Wikipedia which can be found here: Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Best wishes, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Antarctic-adventurer. Thank you for commenting (again). You're the only who did (so far).

As to your points they raise an interesting almost philosophical conundrum. How does one say that a thing is located in a particular place if one is not allowed to rely on research into either the copyright material of others, albeit found in the public domain, nor to the evidence of one own eyes, because that amounts to original research ? For example the article on Buckingham Palace is complemented by earth geo co-ordinates location, top right of page as usual, but how does one ‘authenticate’ or ‘validate’ those co-ordinates? Research into publically available references derived from an A-Z of London or the relevant OS map etc etc would breach copyright limitations, whilst saying “I’ve been there and seen where it is for myself “ would breach the no original research rule.

In all humility, I think that, when researching the physical location of a thing, one surely has to be allowed to examine the photographs, maps etc etc and/or satellite images of others, which they willing place in the public domain, so long as one does not then reproduce their proprietary picture, map, photo, image etc, without the author’s consent. However, the fact of where those images etc establish that a thing is in actuality located in the real world, is not I think subject to any intellectual or creative copyright ?

A simple Google image search will reveal any number of photographs of the identifiable individual vessels concerned, capable of identification typically from hull numbers, and often at the very moorings or berth, visually identifiable as the place featured in the GE satellite photo-image. Thus confirming the location as being that of a specific vessel. Equally, technical information on the size, plan view detail and outline shape of a class of vessel, as seen in a satellite image, is also readily available from open source on-line materials.

In the case of the four Atlant/Slava Class cruisers in the example, the article in question already (though correctly) identified each in turn as being in current service only with a particular Russian fleet, before I added the earth co-ordinates. Fleets based respectively in Homeports hundreds and thousands of miles apart. In the case of the Ukrayina it specifically states the Ukrainian city where the shipyard is in which it was built starting in 1983, and where it has been moored ever since.

If, even in such a case as that, the physically identifiable plan image of a Slava class cruiser moored or berthed in that fleet’s homeport, when there is only one such vessel assigned to that fleet and it is the only such vessel to be seen anywhere in that port, and when coupled with the Panoramio photo images identifying it as such, is still insufficient to confirm or verify the vessel in the image as the vessel that is attached to that fleet, then perhaps the rules won’t permit the publication of the information I would propose? However, I’ll conclude by pointing out that in the case of each of these four cruisers that very identification is currently pasted into the vessel image in wikimapia (with the exception of the Varyag which was at sea when the latest Google satellite image of Valdivostok was taken) – not that I’m saying Wikipedia’s commedably high standards of verification are in any way comparable with the editorial standards of wikimapia, but they are usually native Russians after all.

Gosh sorry for length - I'm sure that's another rule I've broken - I'll go read through the manual now. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Eight Thirty-two (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

John, in my opinion this is a really bad idea. I can see why you think it's valuable, but it will be a nightmare to keep current, and it adds nothing of encyclopedic value. As an illustration, under the entry for Chervona Ukrayina in Slava_class_cruiser#Units, the text says you have to select a particular image provider and date - for what? To see an overhead view of what may or may not be the vessel in question? I don't want to wee on your conflagration, but it's unsustainable and of no benefit. Sorry, Shem (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's being proposed. John said: Of course, the intention is not really to indicate where the particular vessel is at any given moment (they move you know)- but rather to indicate where the 'home port' or usual berth is. Here at Wikipedia, we are only allowed to state a ship's home port if we can find a reliable source for this information (see the verifiability policy: WP:V). Using Google Earth to determine this is original research (which is, of course, not allowed). Mlm42 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if there is a reliable source for a ship's home port, I don't think we should be giving coordinates for things that move (such as ships). So we can give coordinates for the port, but not for the ship. It appears coordinates have been added for the ships in Slava_class_cruiser#Units, so these should probably be removed. Mlm42 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with much of the opposition that has been raised, though I appreciate this was done with the very best of intentions. The concern I have is that this does seem fairly clearly to be at least skirting dangerously close to violations of WP:OR and WP:V. I understand that at times these seem fairly ridiculous, but they are the basis for wikipedia, and hence have the status as being non-negotiable 'pillars'. This piecing together all sorts of different information to conclude which ship in a particular port is which raises concerns about WP:SYNTH as well. On top of that, as other users have noted, this adds a lot of problems with how the images and links are updated, etc, with a minimal value to the article. I'm sure you have a lot of other useful things you can bring to the project, it would be a shame for you to spend so much time on this when there are other much less controversial areas with greater usefulness you could become involved in. Benea (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. message received and understood. I think I've successfully removed the example edits I made both as respects Slava Cruisers and before that re the Zubr Class Hovercraft. I find, however, that I've now been locked-out barred from accessing those sites, so that that.

до свидания John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, I am sorry that your location edits didn't work out. I noticed that in your revert edit over at the Slava Class article page, in the edit summary you wrote, "locational information not acceptable to other editors". I don't want you to feel that you aren't welcome here, as that is most definitely NOT the case. The reason your suggestions were questioned wasn't because they weren't acceptable to other editors, but rather because they go against several longstanding Wikipedia policies and laid down guidelines. I know they can seem rather inflexible sometimes, but they are well tried and tested. (Although things do change at WP). I am not sure what you mean when you say you are "barred" from accessing some websites. There are many great ways to contribute on this project though, so hopefully you will stick around and join us. If you have any questions, or need any help feel free to ask here or ask me on my talk page. Most Wikiproject ships members are friendly enough, even if they can seem a little direct about it at times. Best wishes, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections Antarctic-adventurer. I apologise for using the wrong terminology regarding the reasons for removing or 'reverting' (is it ?) previous edits. Please accept I hadn't intended any slight merely an inexperienced use of language. Ought I to go back and correct these explanatory notes ? not sure how to do so anyway. Regarding the fact that I said I was blocked, this refers to the fact that just as I had completed the last 'reversion' I tried to examine the 'pages' concerned to confirm the results but simply couldn't. A message came up saying the site was 'currently inaccessible' instead. I took it that this wasn't co-incidental. However, since returning home I've tried to access them again just now (some 5 hrs later) and find I can again get access again. In ending I feel that I should point out that when I looked at the following ship pages last week: Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov , Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy, and Soviet command ship SSV-33 I discovered that each of them had geo-co-ordinates added to them, resulting in a wiki logo link appearing in Google Earth over the equivalent satellite image. It was this which originally encouraged me to think that such locational info was acceptable to wikipedia. Clearly, I have a lot yet to learn about how wikipedia editing works, and I think I'll sit back and study the voluminous instructional materials now for a while, before trying to edit again. Thanks for your encouragement. John Eight Thirty-two (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

John, the Wikipedia servers were playing up this morning, causing the error message that you go - it happened to me too. Not much that can be done about it when this happens, apart from taking a tea break. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh.. John has hit on an interesting point, for example the article Russian battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy is tagged with coordinates (they should possibly be removed). Tagging articles with coordinates has been a recent fad in Wikipedia, and I don't think there is a very good established consensus (let alone guidelines) for how to deal with it. In particular, when is it original research to add coordinates to an article? I don't think there's a good answer for this question - most places don't have their coordinates published, but it's not hard to look things up in Google maps.

But the question at hand is about ships; some editors here appear to be in favour of the rule: "don't tag ship articles with coordinates". Do others agree? Mlm42 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the only time a ship article should be tagged with coordinates is if it is incredibly unlikely that the ship will move in the future. The only two scenarios I can think of that meet these criteria are museum ships and shipwrecks/sunken ships. -- saberwyn 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't the only times. If it can be sourced that something happened at a particular location, then that location can also be given as a coordinate in the article. For ships in current service, a link to the AIS webpage showing the current location of the ship is acceptable as an external link. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you re: the external link to AIS. Re: 'something happened at a particular location', I'd be happy with that as an inline link. I don't think in either case that those coordinates should appear in the top-right corner of the article. -- saberwyn 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The usage guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates cover this issue nicely. —Diiscool (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Diiscool. The answer is over at the link you provided. "Do not add coordinates to the top or infoboxes of the following types of articles:... Ships that are not permanently docked" - So basically anything that isn't going to move, then add away. Otherwise leave out. Antarctic-adventurer(talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions for west coast steamships

A question was raised as to why Cheslakee (steamship) was not entitled "SS Cheslakee". As the response as a more general application, I am cross-posting it here:

The prefix SS, while sometimes seen in connection with vessels on the BC coast, was so far as I can see not commonly used at this time (1910 to 1913) to designate this or other ships of this type in this region. See for example Rushton, Whistle Up the Inlet, at pages 54-55 and 67-69, which mentioning Cheslakee a number of times, as well as a number of other similar ships, does not use prefix SS at any time in reference to the vessel, although it is so used in the index. It appears to be an editorial anachronism however, adopted for the purpose of readily distinguishing steamships from motor vessels or from similarly named non-ship topics. One also sees the prefix used in modern on-line image libraries, this again seems to me an anachronism, and contrary to the general use of the times. As Rushton was an employee of the Union Steamship Company of British Columbia from 1920 to 1959, his usage seems authoritative. For other examples of this practice of generally not referring to inland ships by the prefix SS, please refer to the sources listed at User:Mtsmallwood#Bibliography (printed and Google books sources). Also, please refer to the example images (there are others, see link to commons below). Consequently Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Civilian Ships therefore seems to counsel non-use of the prefix, and I have followed this convention in numerous articles on similar ships of this time in this region.

• 
  1912 advertisement uses term "Steamer Fortuna"
• 
  1901 advertisement uses term "Steamer Sentinel"
• 
  1907 or 1908 advertisement for "Steamer Yosemite".
• 
  1900 advertisement for "Steamer State of Washington"

Media related to Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet at Wikimedia Commons. Mtsmallwood (cross-posted to project page) (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

response

With respect, I don't find this a persuasive case for not using the prefix, because there is nothing special about the way "inland ships" are referred to. It is very common for steamships to be referred to as "steamer X" or just "X" in contemporary sources for every kind of steamship, but we need a consistent naming standard here on Wikipedia and "SS" is a universally recognized prefix for steamships. Also, you yourself note that modern sources frequently employ "SS" to refer to these ships, so I see no compelling reason why we should do otherwise. Gatoclass (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

reply

Advertisement from 1901 for the sternwheeler Fairhaven and the propeller Inland Flyer both described as “steamers” with no prefix SS.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Civilian Ships, which state:

Civilian ships should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. In particular:

If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name:

• SS John W. Brown (compare John W. Brown)
• PS Waverley (compare Waverley)

Do not use slashes or other punctuation within the ship prefix:

• MV Dunedin Star (not 'M/V Dunedin Star')
• SS Christopher Columbus (not 'S.S. Christopher Columbus')

If more than one prefix was used, choose the best-known and create a redirect from the other:

• RMS Titanic should have a redirect from SS Titanic

A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous:

• Niña

So, let us consider the evidence about how these types of ships were known:

• Schwantes, Carlos Arnaldo, Long Day's Journey - The Steamboat and Stagecoach Era in the Northern West, University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA (1999) ISBN 0-295-97691-8, lists many steamboats in the index, not one of which bears the prefix in the index or elsewhere in the book. Schwantes is a respected historian of the Pacific Northwest. The vessels he describes in his book, all without the SS prefix, include many with Wikipedia articles, such as Bailey Gatzert, George E. Starr, Georgiana, and Olympian to name just a few.
• Rushton, Gerald A., Echoes of the Whistle - An Illustrated History of the Union Steamship Company, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, BC (1980) ISBN 0-88894-286-9, provides over describes over 50 steamships and motor vessels on pages 132 to 140 of the book. Not one includes the prefix SS. A number of these vessels have articles in Wikipedia which, like Rushton, don't use the SS prefix. These include, for example, Cheslakee, Cutch and Lady Alexandra.
• Turner, Robert D., Pacific Princesses – An Illustrated History of Canadian Pacific Railway’s Princess Fleet on the Pacific Northwest Coast, Sono Nis Press, Victoria, B.C., 1977 ISBN 0-919462-04-9, contains an extensive history of British Columbia shipping, focusing on the Princess liners. In no case does he used the prefix “SS” to describe any civilian ship in that book.
• Kline, Mary S., and Bayless, G.A., Ferryboats -- A Legend on Puget Sound, Bayless Books, Seattle, WA 1983 ISBN 0-914515-00-4 is the principal historical source for ferries on Puget Sound, but it also contains a great deal of information on the steam and motor ships which preceded the ferries. In no case do the authors employ the prefix SS.
• Newell, Gordon R. ed., H.W. McCurdy Marine History of the Pacific Northwest, Superior Publishing, Seattle WA (1966) is the principal historical work for the topic. The many ships described in his very large work are indexed by the name of the vessel, followed by the type, for example, “Cheslake, str.” In the text itself, the prefix SS is never used.

There are many other examples which I could give. In short, to use the prefix would be ahistorical, and would deviate both from the usage at the times that these ships were in operation and from the later history books in which their operations are described. One example, with a different prefix, is the PS Eliza Anderson, which really should simply be Eliza Anderson. The ship was never known by the prefix PS (paddle steamer), nor does any history refer the vessel as such.

Since I have shown that both contemporary and historical sources refer to this this ship, and to the many other ships of this area and time, without a prefix, I would regard addition of the prefix as something in derogation of the naming convention.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mtsmallwood has chosen to bring this immediately to Wikiships, as I don't really feel up to a debate of this kind right now and would have preferred to leave it to another time. Since he has brought it up though, I will try to make a few quick points. Firstly, my objection is not to the notion of using a ship's common name as outlined by the guideline Mtsmallwood quotes above. I just think this quote is irrelevant, because it's not the ship name I am objecting to, but the disambiguator. My point is simply that "SS" is a better and more concise disambiguator and one used very widely on this project. It is inconsistent and redundant to use an alternative disambiguator like "(steamship)", which is only likely to lead to confusion for readers.

For the record, I don't find Mtsmallwood's argument about steamships in certain localities and at certain times not using the "SS" prefix very persuasive either, because the fact is that "SS" was not used much in the 19th century at all, but it is commonly used as a disambiguator today. See how many contemporary sources you can find which refer to SS Great Western with the prefix, for example (hint: don't bother, there aren't any). Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Strict standardisation of prefixes in article titles may appeal to some people in wikiprojects, but for the benefit of the encyclopædia's readers I would rather put more weight on WP:COMMONNAME. We don't need to have recurrent, detailed debates about how to formulate exactly the right name for ships, if sources already give us the name. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but again, this is not about the name in my view, it's about the disambiguation method. Gatoclass (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

USS Kansas City (CA-128) and Kansas City (CA-128)

Apparently the was a cut and paste move of USS Kansas City (CA-128) to Kansas City (CA-128), with the former title turned into a redirect. Following a request at WP:HD#Request History Merge USS Kansas City (CA-128) and Kansas City (CA-128) I think I've managed to sort this out. Any move request should be done via WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I believe the ship is not notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Therefore I've PRODded it. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been redirected to the class article. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Ostfriesland now open

A-class review for the SMS Ostfriesland is now open. Any comments will be appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Yunus sub

Do we have an article on the IRIN submarine Yunus? [1] I couldn't find one, so I suspect we don't. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the Kilo class submarine, of which the Yunes (with an "e", your source uses both spellings for some reason) is a member. Weakopedia (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Plimsoll Ship Data

Good news! The Plimsoll Ship Data website, which has been "under maintenance" since February, is now back online. It is an excellent source of info for merchant ships worldwide in service between c1939 and c1945. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not all good news, as several errors are occurring with the linked pdf documents, although some were working today which weren't working a few days ago. Looks like progress is being made and hopefully the website will be fully functional again soon. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RV Zeeleeuw - Copy pasting technical info

Hello. What're the rules on copy pasting technical info? I would love to copy paste the bulk of this into RV Zeeleeuw. It would be impossible to rewrite. Could I reorganize it? Would that avoid copyvio problems? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is all that detail needed? Perhaps the interesting bits could be used, and the rest of the detail accessible via an EL.

I think (NB: my personal æsthetic preferences are not - yet - legally enforcible) that a long list of those tech details could make an article quite ugly - it could be better to incorporate just the more interesting bits into prose, which helps avoid concerns about copyvio too. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I'll grab some goodies and EL the url. Many thanks for the swift reply. May the wind be at your hull and bilge water not enter your boot, or however the expression goes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS New Zealand (1911) now open

The A-Class review for HMS New Zealand (1911) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Hood (51) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Hood (51) 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) 16:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

reference check

Can somebody help with Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Hoste_(1652-1700) and check if the references are correct? mabdul 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd wager they are - the book Hoste wrote is certainly real. An English translation from the 19th century is also available; it's prefaced with an excerpt from the Dictionnaire Historique that corroborates the requested article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is DANFS all messed up?

http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/index.html Anyone else getting a mostly blank screen for the index? The individual articles seem to be fine however. Brad (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears fine to me. -- saberwyn 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly blank screen for me on Firefox 3.6. But the same page shows fine on Safari.

On Firefox what I see is just the footer of the page, after a bit of code: "06 July 2009 --->". Checking, that comes from a line

"<!--- <P><i>06 July 2009</font></i></P> --->"

—WWoods (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I get the same issue with Firefox, but no problem with Google Chrome browser. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Works fine on my mac with Firefox 5.01--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Works fine with my mac with Firefox 5.01.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It must be a firefox problem then. I use FF and windows. Brad (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Working fine for me, and I use Firefox. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention consistency

I've never edited any of the articles within the scope of this WikiProject, but I've noticed that there seems to be a lack of consistency in the naming convention. Specifically, the articles for three essential parts of a ship (bow, bridge, and hull) are titled bow (ship), bridge (nautical), and hull (watercraft). Why aren't all three articles specified with either "ship", "nautical", or "watercraft"? These are the only three example I know of so I'm sure there's more, but it just doesn't make sense why there's no consistency as it seems that all three terms are interchangeable to an extent.

Hmmm, (ship) would seem to be the better disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand both small boats and huge ships have hulls, and a one man inflatable dinghy has a bow (or prow?). And whereas bow (ship) is referring to the bit at the front, Bow (ship) could mean Bow, a ship.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think probably that (ship) is the very worst of the disambiguators. (nautical) could still leave ambiguity (append it to 'port' for example), perhaps (watercraft) is best, unless a new and better term could be thought up? Benea (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with "port (nautical)"? Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about port as in the side of a ship or boat as distinct from starboard, or are you talking of port as in a harbour, used by ships and boats? Benea (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think of "port" (a place used by ships and boats) as a "nautical" term - it's a word in common usage and well understood by everyone. The nautical term "port" however has a specialized meaning. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the point would be if a term used as a disambiguator still left the term ambiguous to some people (which it is to me, if not to you, since I associate the harbour/port with nautical affairs) then it is clearly suboptimal. If without having any prior knowledge I saw just 'port (nautical)' written down, it would not be immediately clear to me whether it was referring to the place full of ships and boats, or the frame of reference on a ship or boat. Happily no such disambiguation issue exists in this case, as neither are at 'port (nautical)'. Benea (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Watercraft for me; ties in nicely with the definition of a vessel in the COLREGS. Indisputably correct without overstepping the mark. Shem (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the word "port", I see no ambiguity issue since port (the place used by ships) is the primary topic.

As to the general principle, I note that we have a glossary of nautical terms not a glossary of watercraft terms. That IMO is how it should be, especially given that not all nautical terms pertain specifically to watercraft. "Nautical" is in short a broader term and thus better suited as a disambiguator, so I think if we were going to adopt a universal disambiguator it would be the appropriate choice, otherwise we should leave things as they are. Gatoclass (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Help desk post of interest to the project

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Possible inaccuracy in article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fakta om Fartyg

The Fakta om Fartyg website has moved from www.faktaomfartyg.se/ to www.faktaomfartyg.nu/. It would appear that all refs using this as a source need the .se in the url changing to .nu instead. Would this be suitable for a bot job? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A bot would be best if you're in a hurry. There are over 800 links to the old url. If you do a bot request ask the bot owner to also run "general fixes" on the articles. It's a good excuse to clean up the article while passing over it. Brad (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its well more than 800 - some of articles on that list use the old url multiple times, like Home Lines which has 7 references from FoF. Weakopedia (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot req filed. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

move request: Iowa class battleship → Iowa-class battleship

Just and FYI regarding the move request to move Iowa class battleship → Iowa-class battleship.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The move proposal is at Talk:Iowa class battleship#Proposed move: Add a hyphen--Toddy1 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal has been closed - no consensus for move. Shem (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in titles of articles about ship classes

Should articles like Iowa class battleship (more examples) have hyphens in their titles? This issue has already been discussed here and here, but in each case a slightly different question (whether a bot should move all those articles, and whether Iowa class battleship in particular should be moved) was the primary focus. In the latter case, a few users suggested beginning a general debate on exactly this issue on this page. Sounds sensible to me. —Saric (Talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is potentially going to be an epic. Could you please suggest a carefully worded proposition against which we can argue? In addition, should the discussion take place here? Worth getting both right before battle lines are drawn, I suggest. Shem (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am curious as to why this is such a big issue when one considers that the project's own style guidelines say to use the hyphen: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Ship_class_articles and the MOS ship naming conventions say the same: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ship_classes.
I agree that this will be epic and probably deserves its own project subpage. —Diiscool (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This could probably could use a separate subpage, given the amount of discussion last time. Discool, it's a big deal because 99% of the class article don't use the hyphen, even if the naming guidelines say they should. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiding it in a subpage takes the discussion out of main view. There is going to be another long and drawn out "no consensus" conversation on this like the last time. Brad (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, here are two, more concrete proposals. Sorry for moving the discussion again. —Saric (Talk) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly support this. Whatever details there is can be hammered out by those who know more than me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask that we continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Punctuation and ship classes as proposed by Saric above? Shem (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA Wave Chief (A265)

Can I please have confirmation that all info currently in this article is extracted from Colledge. I intend to expand the article but don't have that source myself. Page numbers would be useful. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass NARA image upload

Hey guys, NARA is in the process of uploading something like 123,000 images to Commons. Right now they are on US Navy ships and Cherokee census cards, and if you'd like to see them as they come up (about one ship every five minutes), see [2]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Do you have an estimate on how many images of ships are in the upload batch? I see some of them are being given categories like commons:Category:US National Archives series: Naval History Photographs (Bureau of Ships), compiled 1883 - 1941. Can you provide a list of such categories? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominic (the Wikipedian-in-Residence at NARA) went to bed, but I don't think even he knows how many ships are in there. I think there's going to be a lot; I'd estimate about 50 so far, and the bot's just starting on battleships (abbr. "BB" = beginning of the alphabet). I can compile a list of those cats as I categorize the images, but I can't guarantee it will be comprehensive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the 123,000 won't be in one swipe, as at the current rate it would take something like 200 days to upload all the images he has. (we discussed this a bit on IRC) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very selfishly wondering if it is going to be more than the 5000 shared by the State Library of Queensland. ;-) If it is going to be more than 5000, I'd love to know how many so I can talk to the SLQ about whether they are happy being wikt:one-uped by a small yankee outfit. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<g> From what I can tell, there's only two main categories so far – the one you linked above and commons:Category:US National Archives series: General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, compiled 1943 - 1958, documenting the period 1900 - 1958. If that holds, all you will have to do is add the two numbers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one image in commons:Category:US National Archives series: The Great White Fleet in Australia, compiled 1908 - 1908 as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...along with a few in commons:Category:US National Archives series: Decimal Classified Photographic File, compiled 1916 - 1945. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...and commons:Category:US National Archives series: Signal Corps Photographs of American Military Activity, compiled 1754 - 1954. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Future Surface Combatant got any future?

I've just reverted a unilateral cut/paste move of this article to Type 26 Global Combat Ship. I would appreciate the opinions of editors knowledgable on the subject at Talk:Future_Surface_Combatant#Move Article (Proposal). I think it might need a rewrite and a move rather than a splitting. Thanks, Woody (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal for German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, Flugzeugträger B, and Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier

Hey all. I have opened a merge proposal for the above three articles here - all editors are invited to comment. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason for not using conversion templates

The reason for not using conversion templates to convert gun calibres is that a literal conversion of the nominal gun calibre may be wrong. A 6-inch gun may be 150mm or it may be 152.2mm; it depends on the gun. A 3-inch gun may be 75mm or 76.2mm, depending on the gun. Similarly a 6 pounder antitank gun is a 6 pdr (57mm) gun, not a 6-pound (2.7 kg) gun. The best way to do these conversions is in the text, not using templates. Better no conversion at all than a misleading one.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even when the exact calibre is not known, the conversion will be quite close; the variation between a 75 mm 3-inch gun and a 76.2 mm one is less than 2 %. Which is sufficient for the lay reader to understand the size of the projectile in a measurement system they are familiar with. The 6 pounders are a bit of different case, and an incorrect conversion there is a result of an editor not knowing the subject (or not looking at the article - and even the disambig page gives the 57 mm conversion). Though there the conversion does also approximate to the projectile fired. In both cases, the conversion is at worst inaccurate, but not IMHO "misleading" as in sending them off in completely the wrong direction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In technical subjects (such as gun calibres) "quite close" really isn't good enough - we should be accurate. Another one to watch out for is the British 18 inch torpedo, which was actually 450mm, not 457mm. More info at the link. Shem (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Decimal or fractional inches

On the subject of avoiding decimal inches, did you know that you can use {{convert|24|ft|6|in|m}} to give "24 feet 6 inches (7.47 m)", or {{convert|24+1/2|ft|m}} to give "24+1⁄2 feet (7.5 m)"? To avoid decimal inches easily, {{convert|24+1/2|in|cm}} gives "24+1⁄2 inches (62 cm)" Shem (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! I was aware of it but it wasn't in my consciousness. Probably because '4.5 inch' seems unremarkable to me. I'll try it out. Thanks

I was a little confused by MJroots saying:

• at 08:23: ...please not use decimal inches...
• at 14:29: ...or 4.7 inch gun....

Are decimal inches really forbidden? Lightmouse (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. I don't know what the guidelines are (I'm sure someone will tell us) but clearly 4.7-inch gun is correct, while I would suggest "the fish was 24.7 inches long" is inelegant at best. If it was measured in imperial, then it would have been in fractions of an inch. Having said that, {{convert|62.7|cm|in}} gives "62.7 centimetres (24.7 in)"! Shem (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For guns, decimal inches is correct. For cylinder sizes, decimal inches is ugly. If measurements are up to eighths of an inch, then use the provided symbols. For sixteenths and lower, use the fractional template, but do not use a mixture of the two. IMHO, decimal inches are ugly and unencyclopedic, especially once we get down to the smaller fractions. I mean, who instantly understands 34.65625 inches? 3421⁄32 inches is easily understood. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inelegant it may be to your eye, but it is unrealistic to suggest that for most users 21/32 is more encyclopedic than .65625. 21/32 is not a significant fraction, it doesn't have an article to itself, it is not associated with anything tangible that readers can identify with. It is just a fraction, same as the decimal is just a decimal. As visual aids each is as useful as the other. Is your reason for opposition simply that youdontlikeit, or do you have a reference that makes your opinion clear, especially which instances would be considered "correct" vs. "ugly"? Weakopedia (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rulers and tape measures are commonly marked in 32nds - try marking out .6563 inches on a piece of steel with one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion started with a statement that decimal inches shouldn't be used. But examples have helped us see that it's more subtle than 'never', we see '4.5 inch gun', '4.7 inch gun', '2.75 inch gun. Examples are so useful, I'd like us to make more use of them:

• Conversions into inches: Aster (missile family) says "Diameter 180 mm". Would a conversion into inches require decimal or fractional inches?
• Conversions from inches: <please supply examples where decimal inches are forbidden>

Lightmouse (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

When converting from m/cm/mm into inches use fractions.

Decimal inches are used in British gun names (eg Category:Naval guns of the United Kingdom and sometimes in Japanese gun names) so decimal inches will be used when these are referred to or the source is explicit in the use of a decimal inch as the primary unit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Question 1: That's extremely difficult. If an editor starts with a metric unit, how do they know what the fraction is?

Question 2: That's extremely sweeping. Are you saying all output units in inches without exception across Wikipedia must be in fractions?

Lightmouse (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

German naval guns are measured in metric (for instance, 15 cm SK L/45), but in every source I've ever seen, conversions are always decimal (with the 15cm gun, it's always 5.9"). Since when do we advocate policies that contravene what common usage is?

Also, the {{convert}} template doesn't support fractions as output. As Lightmouse points out, this would be extremely onerous. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that we should use what the sources say. If a cylinder measurement is given to 32nds of an inch, we use it, and convert to metric for the benefit of those readers who are more comfortable with metric. For conversions from metric to imperial, an accuracy of 1⁄8 or 1⁄10 of an inch should suffice. As {{convert}} can't handle fractions, it is neccesary to make a manual conversion. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Collaboration

Hello! Just to mention an exciting collaboration project with the National Maritime Museum in London which we're now going ahead with. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tonnage question

If a ship is described as "x" tons old measurement, and "y" tons new measurement in an 1880s source, would that equate to BOM and GRT? Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a British ship? Which source is it?

I'd be very wary of extrapolating from what sources say, so it might be better to stick with "old" and "new", unless we can be really confident about the conventions used that source. bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is the UK in the 1880s, "old" measurement would almost certainly be Builder's Old Measurement. If it's measured in a fraction of 94 (eg 1,246 74/94), then it is BOM without a shadow of doubt. As for "new", it will probably be displacement, but as Bob says, you have to be very wary indeed here. Shem (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The ship is HMS Endymion, and the source is the Illustrated London News for 23 July 1881, p74.

Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555. gives 2,478 30/94 bm and 3,197 displacement for the "as designed" figures. Shem (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is good, as ILN gives 2486 old measurement and 3197 new measurement. Shem, would you do the honours on the article with that measurement and source? Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done - although I've hedged in a note, since the ILN figure is likely to be the "as built" figure, while the Winfield burthen is explicitly the "as designed" figure. Shem (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Shem. I've tweaked the ref format to fit with other book and journal refs. I've got hopes of a FA, hopefully without too much difficulty after achieving GA. If anyone fancies doing a GAR... Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Belfast (C35) - request for feedback

Hello all. Back in 2009 I did some work on HMS Belfast and managed to get it to Good Article status. Looking at it again, I'd like to ask members of this project, especially those with experience of the Featured Article candidacy process, how much work they think might be required to get this article to FA standard. --IxK85 (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on units of measure:

• 11,553 tons
  • I note the discussion above about being careful with tons. Does anybody know what tons these are?
• 613 ft 6 in (186.99 m) overall
  • I think 1 cm precision is excessive. Do we have guidance on this?
• 80,000 shaft horsepower
  • Can that be abbreviated and converted to make it consistent with similar articles?
• There are various instances of 'mile' in the text. It's not clear whether these are statute or nautical. Can they be converted?

It also looks as if the ratio between high and low value links could be improved. Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, excellent work on the article so far. I agree that the 1 cm precision is excessive, though. On a content side, I'd say some of the sections could use more detail. For instance, I think a more complete picture of Belfast's activities during the Battle of North Cape is a must. For instance, Belfast and HMS Jamaica (44) administered the fatal torpedo hits that sank Scharnhorst. Take a look at the latter article for an example of what I'm talking about. One other thing that caught my eye: Uboat.net has been determined to not satisfy the "high quality" part of 1c and should be replaced before you go to FAC. As for references in general, I'd like to see more books - you can use books that cover the operations in which the ship took part to get the fuller picture (for instance, books on North Cape or the Normandy landings would be useful), rather than relying on a couple of books that focus entirely on the ship and the IWM.

On a side note, I would strongly recommend doing an A-class review through MILHIST, which operates joint reviews with WP:SHIPS. These help to iron out any issues before FAC and generally make things much easier. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Precision depends on the precision of the original measurement. If it were just to the nearest foot, then I'd convert to metres, or tenths of metres for smaller measurements. If feet and inches are given, than conversion to centimetres is appropriate. 1 cm = 2⁄5 inch approx. So 430 feet (130 m) or 430 feet 0 inches (131.06 m), depending on the source. When working on modern ships, measurements are generally given to the nearest centimetre, which can be converted to feet and inches without anyone questioning it, such as on the MS Riverdance article. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wingate (cited in the article) gives her length overall as 613ft 6+7⁄16in, which works out as 187.006 m so calling it 187 m would seem accurate enough. The 11,553 tons figure is standard displacement according to the IWM. Wingate gives 11,550, which might simply be a rounding of 11,553. Watton only gives a standard displacement figure for Belfast's trials, not the end of her service. Regarding miles, I would think that the first two of them are nautical, as they relate to distances at sea, and the last to statute, but I'm not sure the sources are actually specific on this point. My thanks for the tip-off about Uboat.net. The reason for the fairly terse North Cape summary was that the GA reviewer thought that only a broad outline was required, but that can easily be expanded. I'll see what can be done about expanding the bibliography. IxK85 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be over precise. Given a thermal co-efficient of 13x10^-6 m/mK for steel, she would be nearly a meter longer in the tropical heat of 40°C than she would have been at the Battle of the North Cape at about 0°. I'd say to the nearest tenth of a meter, or even nearest meter, would be fine. Shem (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:IxK85/RNLB Jesse Lumb - ready for mainspace?

Hello all. My thanks first off for the speedy and very helpful replies to my last post. If you'll indulge me again, could I ask anyone interested to look at User:IxK85/RNLB Jesse Lumb and let me know if they think it's fit for article space? The vessel in question is a National Historic Fleet, Core Collection lifeboat, the Jesse Lumb. IxK85 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice. It looks good for primetime! Just a couple of thoughts:

• Would it be practical to shrink that main image by a few pixels? It (and the infobox) might be a little too dominant on the page.
• Could the hud.ac.uk source be cited inline?

However, don't let those concerns be obstacles - we could just as easily haggle over them after the article goes live. Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, 300px is the standard size for infobox images. I don't think it's all that overwhelming as is. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Huddersfield link, I'm not sure inline citations can be within footnotes, but the information could probably be incorporated into the body text and inline cited if need be. IxK85 (talk)

I've incorporated the references within the footnotes using a magic word. See WP:REFNEST for further details. Shem (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very handy, thanks. Seems like everything is order, at least for a start, so I think I might move the article. IxK85 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's a vessel on the National Historic Ships register, then the article will want {{National Historic Ships}} adding, and the template will need another entry. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Kaiserin now open

The A-Class review for SMS Kaiserin is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913) now open

The FAC for SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ACR for HMS New Zealand

The A-class Review for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer an opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox units: abbreviate or full

I've noticed an inconsistency in ship articles. Some have units abbreviated in the infobox, some don't. For example, the example the infobox template example has "311 ft 8 in (95 m)" whereas HMS Uppland (Upd) has "60.4 meters (198 feet 2 inches)". Which format is best? Lightmouse (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer "full abbreviations" in infoboxes because I think the "data density" should be as high as possible (within reason) and "partial abbreviations" (abbr=out) or full units in the article because there's no need to conserve space and full units are easier to read. That's why I don't agree with all of your bot's edits in one of my articles (e.g. "...only a bit over two nautical miles from the pilot station..." → "...only a bit over 2 nmi (3.7 km) from the pilot station..."). Tupsumato (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that guidance says:

• In tables and infoboxes, use unit symbols and abbreviations—do not spell them out.

I agree with the guidance. I hope you are careful with thoughts of "my articles". But the example you give is not a deliberate choice. It's just because I had to write some additional and complex code for 'numbers-as-words'. It's much easier to handle 'numbers-as-digits'. If you have no objection to "... only a bit over 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) from the...", I'll update the code.

Does anybody else agree with User:Tupsumato that input units and output units should be abbreviated within infoboxes as per mosnum? Lightmouse (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually, yes. However, there may be cases where the abbreviation may be unclear to lay readers (for instance, "kn" for "knots"). It would probably be unwise to use an unclear abbreviation on a part of the page which attracts the eye first. bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes and tables are supposed to be summaries of information, so abbreviating the units there to save space, etc. is totally appropriate. Spell out or link less common units only if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, certainly the units should be abbreviated in infoboxes. I too am aware that some nautical units (knots in particular) can be confusing, but that's sometimes just as true when spelled in full. I prefer to use the abbr=on & lk=on options so that somebody who doesn't understand "knots" or "kn" can at least click on the link. Shem (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I know they're not really "my articles" — it was a slip of the tongue. Anyway, I have no objection regarding the numbers and conversions, but I'd rather see the major unit spelled out in the text, i.e. "nautical miles" instead of "nmi", just because there's really ne need to shorten it. As for the knots, there's usually no shortage of space in that part of the infobox so I've usually spelled it out instead of using the abbreviation. I haven't linked or converted it, though — might be my next step in making the articles I write more understandable to the general public. However, one thing I don't convert is the power, but that's another issue and can be discussed e.g. when talking about the future infobox manual. Tupsumato (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Units are supposed to be spelled out in the text per MOS, but that's a different issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. Only obscure units probably need a link. If the unit is anything less than obscure in abbreviated or full form (e.g. nautical miles, knot), a conversion should be sufficient in a ship article next to the title such as Speed:. Lightmouse (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've discussed with Lightmouse, I see absolutely no need to abbreviate units like feet, meter, knot, etc. that are only four or five letters long to begin with because it costs me more time typing out the code to abbreviate them than it saves space. I will always abbreviate where not doing so, for whatever reason, will extend an entry onto an extra line. An example would be abbreviating inch when listing the armor thickness of various parts of a ship. I do convert power if it's presented in ihp or shp to kW, but not if it's already in kW. I do link unfamiliar terms like knot, nautical mile and shp/ihp on the first occurrence only. And please note that that WP:MOSNUM specifies that long ton should be spelled out, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't use abbreviations when creating articles, but it's not something worth an edit war over if it gets changed. Whilst of the subject, can we please not use decimal inches - i.e. 24½ inches (62 cm) and not 24.5 inches (62 cm). Also, AFAIK, we don't convert gun calibres. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re gun size, I would always give a conversion from one unit to the other, but only at first use and not in the infobox where there's the rest of the weapon name to fit in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If converting gun calibres would help readers, we should do it. (As long as there's space available). bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't convert due to many guns having articles, which should be wikilinked if it is known exactly which gun is meant by (e.g.) 4-inch gun or 4.7 inch gun. I'm not well enough versed in these matters to identify the correct guns in many cases, which is why I state what the source says and leave it to others to wikilink. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm thinking of text examples such as "...was hit by 6-inch (150 mm) shells from the shore battery. She fired back with her 4-inch (100 mm) guns, supported by her sister ship HMS Nonsuch. Together the two destroyers fired over 150 4-inch HE shells during the engagement." GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know related topics are worth discussing but can we deal with infobox abbreviation consistency first? As I understand it, we have the following:

• wp:mosnum guidance:
  • abbreviate in infobox
• abbreviate in infobox by default (i.e. various exceptions, to be defined):
  • User:Tupsumato
  • User:bobrayner
  • User:Fnlayson
  • User:Shem1805 (I'd say "abbreviate in infobox by default but use common sense" Shem (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC))
  • User:Lightmouse - added self Lightmouse (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • User:GraemeLeggett - added following comments of 00:05, 30 July 2011
• abbreviate only when space is limited:
  • User:Sturmvogel 66
• writes in full but accepts edits that abbreviate:
  • User:Mjroots

Is that a reasonable summary? Graeme, what do you think about abbreviation consistency? Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd use the normal full abbreviation in the infobox for all items - which in the case of WPSHIPS would be things like 136 m, 1,400 hp, 13,500 LT, 45 kn, 7,000 km. I'd have thought one or other of the units (metric or imperial) would be known to the average reader but if I thought it was obscure I'd wikilink the first occurence. eg "shp" and the same info will be in the article with more context. [Comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)]

Toddy, you haven't expressed an opinion on infobox abbreviation as far as I can see. Do you think infoboxes should have consistency with regard to abbreviation? Lightmouse (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The majority of views expressed say that units should be abbreviated within infoboxes with various exceptions to be defined. Look at the following:

• Length: 100 feet (30 metres) -> 100 ft (30 m)
• Length: 100 feet 6 inches (30.63 metres) -> 100 ft 6 in (30.63 m)
• Power: 2,000 horsepower (1.5 megawatts) -> 2,000 hp (1.5 MW)
• Boiler: 650 pounds per square inch (4.5 megapascals) -> 650 psi (4.5 MPa)
• Boiler: 850 degrees Fahrenheit (454 degrees Celsius) -> 850 °F (454 °C)

In order to improve consistency across infoboxes, which of those units should be abbreviated in infoboxes? Lightmouse (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to abbreviations in infoboxes in principle. I very strongly object to "kn" (use knots) and LT (use "tons" or "long tons"). Please make sure that you differentiate between shp, ihp, and nhp, because they are not the same. I know you love conversions, but please don't convert tons BOM or nhp into metric measures, as this is meaningless.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing, what's the ship project consensus about nautical miles: abbreviated or full? Lightmouse (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

nautical miles is clearer than "nmi". Because of our audience, miles is inadvisable (they would think it was miles of 1760 yds, not miles of 6080 ft/1853 m). "nmi" is too cryptic.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll proceed to update Infobox ships with the abbreviations noted above. Lightmouse (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think nmi is appropriate in infoboxes, if it's considered too cryptic, that's what wikilinks are for. Gatoclass (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So we have:

• Do not abbreviate nautical mile in infobox
  • User:Toddy
• Abbreviate nautical mile in infobox
  • User:Gatoclass

What do other editors think? Lightmouse (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Almost) never before seen photographs of the construction of the USS Iowa

Yesterday we had a bunch of Wikipedians out at the National Archives doing scanning of various photographs in the archives. We happened to end up with boxes full of construction photographs of World War II battleships. We scanned about a dozen photographs of the USS Iowa (BB-61) in various stages of construction. So far as I'm aware these photographs have not been digitized before, and have probably only been seen by a handful of people. They've just been sitting on the Archives shelves all these years.

Anyway, I'm coming here because we need help with the photographs. They're all in ~50 MiB TIFF files direct from the scanner. The level of detail is amazing, but they can't be used in articles in this form. We need someone with some basic experience to convert them over to JPGs, do some auto-leveling or whatever to equalize the light levels and coax some details out of the shadows, etc. And of course we need some help incorporating them into articles as appropriate.

Anyway, the photographs have been uploaded to Commons. Look for the really huge TIFF files in that category. Please help out with conversion of the photographs, and enjoy these views of the USS Iowa! --Cyde Weys 03:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now they're not showing up on that link for some reason. If I go to the image description pages they show as being in that category, but they aren't on the category page itself. Maybe this is some bug related to the failed thumbnail generation for the files? Regardless, here's a list of direct links to the files.

1. commons:Image:19-LC BS49191.tif
2. commons:Image:19-LC BS49197.tif
3. commons:Image:19-LC BS49194.tif
4. commons:Image:19-LC BS49182.tif
5. commons:Image:19-LC BS49188.tif
6. commons:Image:19-LC BS49193.tif
7. commons:Image:19-LC BS49189.tif
8. commons:Image:19-LC BS49186.tif
9. commons:Image:19-LC BS49181.tif
10. commons:Image:19-LCunnumbered.tif

Some conversion, so that they can be viewed in a web browser without having to download the mammoth raw TIFFs, would be very nice indeed! --Cyde Weys 23:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)