Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Mary Rose at FAC

I've nominated Mary Rose for FAC. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. You are most welcome to contribute to the review of the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bridgeport FAR

I have nominated USS Bridgeport (AD-10) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for USS Triton (SSRN-586) now open

The A-Class review for USS Triton (SSRN-586) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massive article clean-up needed

Sorry to dump this in your laps, but I do not have the time and only stumbled upon this. An well established editor has recently created some stubs on vessels of the Military Sealift Command which are nothing more than one line with a single reference and an image. This is sorely inadequate and I have asked the user to cease this activity until the articles are created in-line with our guidelines, but in the mean time the already-created articles are in need of clean-up and standarization with our guidelines plus expansion to cover the salient events in the ship's career to establish notability. The user is Geo Swan (talk · contribs) and these are the affected articles, which I have had to already move to proper titles per WP:NC-SHIPS: USNS Fisher (T-AKR-301), USNS Gordon (T-AKR-296), USNS Mendonca (T-AKR-303), USNS Gilliland (T-AKR-298), USNS Brittin (T-AKR-305), USNS Benavidez (T-AKR-306). -MBK₀₀₄ 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Naval Historical Center/Naval History and Heritage Command

The entity listed above had the first name until the end of 2008, when it changed to the second. A question arose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Calliope (1884)/archive1 as to which form should be used for documents created before the name change. (The documents in question were textual documents, and bore the original name.) The matter has been discussed further at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Article_name_changes_post-publication, and the view seems to be to use both names in such cases. Kablammo (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Star ship incident – call for a mediation

Hello! Please, help with a conflict in this article. There is a piece of text of disputed relevance, see talk:New Star ship incident. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For other editors - the article discusses a Chinese merchant ship being fired on in/near Vladivostok. The disputed text is about Vladivostok having been a Chinese city until relatively recently. Incnis: I think you should explicitly state in the article why that fact is relevant. My guess is that this could be done in a sentence, if not an independent clause, as opposed to a section. Also, it would be helpful to provide a pingyin version of the city's Chinese name. Haus^Talk 00:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond that to being a clear WP:COATRACK. For some reason nationalist claims have sprung up over whether the territory Vladivostok was later built on was legally sold, or forcibly seized or whatever. Either way it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this particular incident, and may also violate WP:OR. For the record I think Incnis is advocating removing the section, making it the opposing editor's requirement to make the case why it should be included. Benea (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

I have come across some articles recently, for example USNS Brittin (T-AKR-305), which have been tagged as needing third party sources. This article has one source, but it is from Military Sealift Command website, and I am confused as to why this is inappropriate; this is surely the best place to gain sources. Armed forces are major government organisations and would have policies in place to ensure they don't mislead their readers by providing poor information. And how can they be biased regarding the facts of what happened on a deployment, or a date, or the dimensions of a ship (although I admit that they are probably not the best sources for a criticism section). As well as this, I think it is almost certain that with most of this, third party sources would themselves get this sort of information from the main organisation itself. Jhbuk (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is the guiding policy on this, and it says in a nutshell "be careful when using primary sources." Governments have been known to lie. However, one has a hard time imagining a government lying about the LOA of a RO-RO. Here are two secondary sources:

• {{Psix name |id=1287 |title=USNS Brittin |accessdate=2010-02-25 |year=2010 }}, and
• {{ABS name |02112485|USNS Brittin|accessdate=2010-02-25 |year=2010 }}.

Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A very stubby article such as you point out does not really require an assortment of references. The Naval Vessel Register would also have more information on those ships. Remove the tags if you see fit. --Brad (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The tagging is probably a bit over the top given that these articles are stubs on commissioned warships, but it is a fair point. Sources like Jane's Fighting Ships or the excellent Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World provide the same basic data but (in theory) with government over and under claims removed and are often more up to date as well. They'll also generally note if the ship has been experiencing serious problems, which government websites normally don't. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the article length, there is plenty of info in the infobox that could be used to expand the article and give it some structure. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Carysfort (1836)

HMS Carysfort (1836) was recently submitted to DYK. The article is hardly about the ship at all, rather it's about an event that took place in 1843 when the ship's commander took it upon himself to "occupy" Hawaii in 1843. Personally, I think the material concerning the occupation should be moved to a new article, called "1843 occupation of Hawaii" or something, with just a brief summary and link left at the ship article itself, but rather than make a unilateral move I thought I would bring the issue here for discussion first. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

While fully agreeing with your recommendation, I have just today amended and expanded the rest of the entry on this ship (not touching the Hawaiian incident text), so please make sure that you leave the appropriate parts of the existing entry in place. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the Hawaii incident into Paulet Affair (1843) since that is its most common name in the sources. The Ship article is looking more complete now clearly centered on the ship. It might need another footnote or two on where the ship info comes from, right? Thanks for help. W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, although as co-author of the primary source on warships of that period (The Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889), perhaps it should not be for me to add it. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Article has been split into three separate articles. Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A profusion of ensigns

What is our position on ensigns in infoboxes? Specifically, the number of them displayed. I bring this up as there are a few articles around which seem to try and show the reader every ensign the ship sailed under (à la HMS Surprise (1796)). In that example, I think one ensign in each career panel is fine - but I thought we operated with the policy of one ensign (per section), and that ensign should be the last one the ship served under, or if that was for an insignificant period of time, or perhaps if the most significant event for which the ship in question is famous was during a different period, then the appropriate ensign instead. Showing several seems excessive, somehow... Martocticvs (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem would seem to be that all flags are correct, due to a change of flag during the ship's service with that country. A similar problem arises with merchant ships - such as SS Stettin (1933). Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Dutch ships and officers

Hi there, I am currently working on a draft article of Battle of Camperdown and need some urgent help with articles on Dutch warships and naval officers, with the redlinks outlined at User:jackyd101/Workbox7. I know that a number of the required articles have their equivalents on Nederlands wikipedia and I am leaving this notice in several places in the hope that someone can help me. If you are able to translate Dutch and willing to work on this then please drop me a line on my talk page and I'll explain more specifically which articles I need the most (I can handle the required articles on British ships and officers myself, its just the Dutch I'm struggling with). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not an historian, nor a sailor, just Dutch. [But working on categorising ships on Commons.] What is the problem? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Bayern class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Bayern class battleship 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! Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ship books

If you can provide me with a list of ship classes, I could create a table similar to WP Element's book progress table, which could act as a roadmap for the books of this project. Any opinions? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, merchant ships or warships? Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whichever. Both? The current trend is on warships however, see Category:Book-Class Ships articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You could start with WP:OMT for the battleships and battlecruisers. What you're looking for does not exist clearly because it would be very very large. It is best split out by the category trees and lists the project has like Category:Battleship classes and Cateogry:Battlecruiser classes, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is... much much larger than I expected... What did I get myself into this time... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When you say ship classes... do you mean all ship classes? That creaking sound you here - it is the hinges on Pandora's box! :D For even more fun, there is List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy - you'll have to pick the class names out of that but they are there, and also List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. And that's just the Royal Navy, and you still have cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, sloops etc etc......... Martocticvs (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I should warn you that there is another complication when dealing with early Royal Navy ships. The term "class" did not have the same meaning as the modern connotation of ships and other vessels built to a common design. The word 'class' was employed much as we would today use the word 'type'. Thus official (and unofficial) sources would refer to, as an example, a "50-gun class"; they did not mean that every ship included in this definition was built to a common design, they simply meant that each of the ship included in the definition was rated at 50 guns.

The terminology became somewhat clearer after 1745, when design of British naval ships was centralised in the Surveyor's Office. Previous to this, the design as well as the construction of ships in the Royal Dockyards was the responsibility of the Master Shipwright in charge of the Dockyard concerned. Each Master Shipwright produced his own design in accordance with the specification laid down by the Navy Board, and used it to build the ship (or, occasionally, ships) of that type which were to be built in his Dockyard at that time. It was thus rare for more than one ship to be constructed to the same design. For much of the early 18th century, the Surveyor's Office only drew design for vessels which were to be built under contract by civil shipbuilders, and even then there were exceptions to this rule. Even after 1745, the term 'class' still had its old meaning of ships built to carry same number and rating of guns. Consequently, each use of the word 'class' for wooden sailing vessels needs to be considered individually to determine if they signify ships built to a common design (or 'draught' in contemporary terminology).

Sadly, many writers have casually used the term 'class' simply because it was a term used at that time, without making it clear that they are not talking about a series of vessels built to one design. I found that this misunderstanding was retained in the articles List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy and List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. I have tried to correct some of this misusage but some older text may remain. For all pre-1745 vessels, it is best to use the word 'group' rather tha 'class' when referring to a group of vessels ordered to a common specification. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I need Major Help

Does anyone know anything about WWII battleships. There's a content dispute going on at Talk:King George V class battleship (1939), and I think we need some experienced people from this project. We already have alerted the military history project, but the dispute doesn't seem to be coming to an end any time soon. I'm going to try and track down some information, but I think someone from this project needs to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rin tin tin 1996 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMAS Sydney (R17) now open

The A-Class review for HMAS Sydney (R17) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-categorisation

I know Bellhalla (talk · contribs) worked a lot on the category tree, but I'm not entirely clear what the system eventually shaped up to be. Anyway Robertgreer (talk · contribs) has been at work re-categorising a large number of Royal Navy ships, in some cases removing Category:Frigates of the United Kingdom for Category:Frigates of the Royal Navy. Category:Frigates of the United Kingdom are also being removed in favour of more refined categories such as Category:Sixth-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy (but again there is the country versus navy distinction - and should 'Frigates' be capitalised there?). Category:First-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy currently contains only HMS Sidon (1846), which may be a confusion of the distinction between 'first rate' and 'first class', which meant different things at different times. Perhaps someone more familiar with the categorisation system could give their opinion as to whether this is in-line with what the categorisation consensus or practice was (if indeed there was such a thing)? Benea (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This confuses the rating system with something else (and I'm not sure what). And three of the five ships in Category:Second-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy were not even frigates— they were ships of the line. There are similar issues with Category:Third-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy. Kablammo (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem here is terminology, as well as the fact ratings and what the term 'frigate' meant changed over time. The class system was a separate one to the rating system (there is no relationship between a 'first class' cruiser of the mid to late 19th century and a 'first rate' ship of the line of the same period). 'Frigate' generally means that a ship carried its main armament on a single deck, though this was not the case with earlier warships, where the term was also used for ships that carried their armament on two decks. I see he is now placing third rate ships of the line into these frigate categories, which is definitely a mistake. The desirability of this categorisation scheme aside, I think this needs further discussion. I'll notify the user and invite him to comment. Benea (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you beat me to it! Benea (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Lavery lists HMS Monck (1659) as a third rate frigate, so I can see how confusion could arise. Kablammo (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By the standards of the day she was, though the term then referred to the role as well as her design and armament, though they were interrelated. But its confusing and I think unhelpful to be categorising ships like HMS Barham (1811) and HMS Monck (1659) as 'Third rate Frigates' and HMS St Michael (1669) and HMS Valorous (1851) as 'Second rate Frigates'. Barham was a third rate but not a frigate, Monck was (for a time) a third rate and a frigate (by 17th century standards at least, by 18th century ones she would have been neither, having too many decks to be a frigate, and too few guns to be a third rate). St Michael has a similar problem, and never appears to have been termed a frigate, while Valorous was a frigate, but not a second rate. Benea (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a load of his edits before seeing this discussion. He applied the frigate categories to straight ships of the line which is unquestionably wrong. I have left them on the old frigate-built ships for the moment, but I seriously dislike that they would be grouped in with the later 'true' frigates, since they bare little real resemblance. As has been rightly pointed out, the system of ratings changed over time anyway, which makes categorisation here problematic if you don't know what constituted a particular rate at a particular time; in its infancy they weren't even 'rates', but 'ranks'. The later class system employed on cruisers was completely distinct, and operated only as a subset of a category of ship (cruisers, in this example). But to call HMS Theseus (1786) a 'third-rate frigate' is bizarre in the extreme.

The second part, relating to the Ships of the United Kingdom categories: it was my understanding that there was a desire from somewhere within the bowels of wikipedia that ships should be categorised by their country... we presumably had sufficient objection to the removal of the ships of the Royal Navy categories so that we ended up with both systems in parallel. To me there is no question that 'Ship Type of the Royal Navy' should remain for the naval vessels, as they should really be held distinct from merchant vessels - is there any great need to duplicate between the two? Martocticvs (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The first problem here is that the use of the word 'frigate' altered dramatically over a period of three centuries. During the early and middle parts of the 17th century, it did not signify a type of ship, but rather a style of construction, i.e. it meant a ship with fine lines built for (relatively) high speed, and with a (fairly) low superstructure to prevent that superstructure being caught by the wind. During the English Commonwealth period, that terminology was applied to ships which were "frigate-built" irrespective of their type; the early frigates were fairly tiny (see Andrew Thrush's 2007 article In Search of the Frigate) and the English warships of the 1646-1650 period were still single-decked vessels, but the very success of these meant that within a couple of years "frigates" were being built with two complete tiers of guns, as Third Rates or even Second Rates. So Brian Lavery is perfectly justified in using the term "frigate" to describe the Third Rates of the Speaker type, even though they - and indeed the Fourth Rates - were unquestionably built to stand in the line of battle.
Matters then settled down, and gradually is became understood that there was a distinction between the ships built to stand in the line of battle, and those built for escort and patrol work ("Convoys and Cruising", as it was then termed). The first three Rates were always designed as "line-of-battle ships", while the Fifth and Sixth rates were the escort and patrol types; the Fourth Rate was always a problem area. Eventually the 18th century definition of the frigate as having a single complete tier of guns (guns on the forecastle and quarterdeck being omitted from consideration in this definition) would emerge, as official policy, but this took many years to crystalise, and even by Nelsonic times sea officers would sometimes apply the term frigate to any ship-rigged warship smaller than a ship of the line. Note this misuse didn't make it official! As far as the RN was concerned, the word frigate officially (from about 1750) meant a single-decked ship carrying at least 28 carriage guns, the vast majority of these carriage guns being carried on the upper deck, with a minority on the quarterdeck and forecastle.
One can consider whether it is correct to apply the word frigate to the smaller two-deckers of 50 or 44 guns; technically it is wrong (the 50s were considered ships of the line until c.1756; the 44s were never considered ships of the line), but it might be feasible to include them for Wikipedia purposes provided each entry carried a reminder that the RN did not categorise them as frigates. Ships of more than 50 guns were NEVER NEVER NEVER described as frigates until February 1817, when the new classing system re-defined a very few 50-gun ships as 60-gun ships because all carronades were from that date counted in the definition.
The rating system is a somewhat different matter. Benea is exactly right in pointing out that "First Rate" and "First class" do not mean the same thing. There is no such thing as a "First Rate frigate", "Second Rate frigate" or "Third Rate frigate", and the term "Fourth Rate frigate" is only applicable to those of the Fourth Rates which did not carry a battery of guns on their lower deck as well as on their upper deck. The terms "First class frigate" or "Second class frigate" were mid nineteenth century usages to designate frigates which were rated as Fourth Rate or Fifth Rate. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One can consider whether it is correct to apply the word frigate to the smaller two-deckers of 50 or 44 guns; technically it is wrong (the 50s were considered ships of the line until c.1756; the 44s were never considered ships of the line), but it might be feasible to include them for Wikipedia purposes - if it is technically wrong, I can't really see what advantage there could be in classifying them in such a way just to suit Wikipedia... better to be correct about these things. Rif - in your opinion, would be it be correct if we were to alter those ships 'built for the line of battle,' that Lavery lists as Frigates in The Ship of the Line to name them as being 'frigate-built ships of the line'? That would remove most of the confusion that would arise with these overlapping terms... Martocticvs (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think this is so for all those Third Rates; in fact, I would remove the word "frigate-built" from any categorisation of such ships, and simply insert the same words instead into the body of each relevant article, because the words are descriptive rather than signifying a particular category. So far as Fourth Rates were concerned, it is hard to be dogmatic. The early Fourth Rates would certainly be considered to be frigates, as they were built with a single continuous gundeck, but within a couple of years (as Brian Lavery explains in his Ship of the Line) a second deck was being added to these ships.
I must make clear that Brian Lavery is not wrong in his listing; it is simply that the term meant different things at different times. To list them as frigates will clearly confuse the casual reader, as they were equally considered able to stand in the line of battle. I suggest that you simply refer to them as "Fourth Rates". Rif Winfield (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear: I had meant the main body of text rather than category names there. Perhaps also there is room for improvement in the articles dealing with the rates themselves, as they seem (perhaps understandably) somewhat biased towards the Napoleonic era, and only really glancing over the fact that their definitions changed quite substantially over time. Martocticvs (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you! Rif Winfield (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the false category of Category:Second-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy remains even though it has now been reduced to two ships. I need to reiterate that these were second-class frigates, not second-rates and the category itself needs removing as it it simply WRONG. The same applies with Category:Third-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy which again is there because of a total misunderstanding by its author of the rating system of the Royal Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to have admitted that he made a simple, but understandable, error in creating them. I suggest we ask him to tag them with Template:Db-g7 and have them deleted that way? Benea (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Thanks, Ben. Please proceed accordingly. The individual articles (5?) tagged by these categories do contain the correct terminology (i.e. "class" rather than "rate") but the links as the foot of each will need amending. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD of interest

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_15#Category:Sailboat_names. Pcap ping 08:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The CfD has been extended to gather more input. The category in question (Category:Sailboat names) is, at the very least, poorly named, since the articles that it contains are about various kinds of sailing vessels, not about names of sailing vessels. The articles in the category are sailing vessels of all kinds, from all eras, and not just vessels that we would probably call "sailboats" -- from yachts and possibly smaller craft through to clippers and even to large warships.

This mess is currently a subcategory of Category:Sailboats

I've suggested that the category be renamed Category:Sailing vessels and become the parent of Category:Sailboats and Category:Sailing ships. Its own parents should probably be Category:Watercraft and Category:Wind-powered vehicles.

Please weigh in over on the CfD page and let me know if this sounds reasonable. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Livingships

Is Template:Livingships really necessary? for the most part, it's off-topic on the articles it's used for, or at least only marginally relevant. This was created about 6 years ago, but it really doesn't seem necessary. I think most of it can be merged to the Lead of List of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans, what's not there already anyway. Forgive me if this has been brought up before and allowed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That template should be deleted with fire. It's only being used on two articles and also introduces uneditable text into an article and there is hardly any good way to reference what it's claiming. It may have made sense 6 years ago but not any longer. --Brad (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, I think that Template:Groundbreaking submarines and Template:Groundbreaking destroyers should also be deleted as they're basically uncited POV. The destroyer one is particularly bad - I fail to see how the Type 45 destroyer is ground breaking (many sources say that they're inferior to the 1980s/1990s era Arleigh Burke class), what's particularly special about the Iroquois class and the Zumwalt class haven't even been built (and may not be). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that both of those templates are on shaky ground. But since they have more article dependencies than "livingships" they should go through the template for deletion process. --Brad (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Seahorse (1794)

HMS Seahorse (1794) Need information on where this ship may have been in 1814-1815. Reportedly USS President (1800) used the name of this ship to trick HMS Highflyer (1813) into surrendering under the guise that President was Seahorse.

Per this, she crossed to North America in around early 1814. Shimgray | talk | 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Seahorse, under Capt. Sir James Gordon, was recommissioned at Woolwich in September 1812 after having a refir and repairs at Woolwich. She sailed for North America in November 1812 and remained on that station until September 1815, when she returned to the UK and was laid up outof commission at Plymouth. During August 1814, she was involved in the Popomac operations.

However, it was not the Seahorse which was wrongly identified by the Highflyer as the British frigate, but another frigate, the 38-gun Tenedos, known to be in the area. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me the source and page number for this? --Brad (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is the court martial report, when the report of Lieut. George Hutchinson (the commander of Highflyer) was given to the Admiralty. A court martial was always held after the loss of every RN vessel, so these (contained in ADM 1/5253-5485, which are included in Admiralty records at Kew) are the most reliable source in ascertaining the circumstances of every loss). For ease, a useful summary is contained in David Hepper's book British Warship Losses in the Age of Sail 1650-1859 (Jean Boudriot Publications, Rotherfield, 1994), on p.148. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS President

USS President (1800) was captured by the Royal Navy in 1815. She was then taken into their service as HMS President and broken up a year or two later. The next HMS President was built to the same design; so the next President should be HMS President (1819) however the only thing close to this on WP is HMS President (1829). The 1829 article seems to be confusing two different ships claiming launch dates of both 1819 and 1829. Can anyone provide some clarity on this? --Brad (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS President was ordered in 1818 to the preceding HMS President's (the former USS President) lines, but not laid down until 1824 and then launched in 1829 (according to Winfield and Colledge). Unless I'm missing something there doesn't appear to have been an HMS President launched in 1819. The occurrence of the 1819 launch date in the article is probably a typo. Benea (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Since the 1829 article had 1819 as a launch date I thought the mistake was in the article title. --Brad (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has only 1829 as a launch date. I have added some other data in which should make matters clearer. Incidentally, I have also added a couple of explanatory lines into the article on the previous (ex-USN) President. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the changes you made to President (1800). You must supply references for what you added. The information is appreciated but the article is currently at A-class and I'm prepping it for FAC. --Brad (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most detail on the post-capture President and her use until 1818 (note she was broken up in 1818, not in 1817; in March 1818 consideration was actually given to repairing her, but her hull was found when surveyed to be so decayed that the idea was discounted she was taken to pieces at Portsmouth in June) are contained in The Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889, the primary source of info on British warships of that period. You will also find details in British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817, p.124. The word 'nominally' before the "44-gun" in the first sentence of the article is required because the President as built actually carried more than 44 guns. The number varied but at the time of her capture she had 53 guns (see William James's Naval History of Great Britain, vol. VI, p.242 for precise details). Rif Winfield (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored your text and will have it referenced properly. It's difficult for me to access Royal Navy accounts as they're just not easily available here. Every source I have claims President was broken up in 1817. Understandably Royal Navy records would likely be more accurate but I cannot just discount the 1817 sources and throw them away based on one or two Royal Navy sources claiming 1818. Likely this discrepancy will have to be explained in a footnote. The old adage that Wikipedia "is not truth but verifiable" comes into play here. --Brad (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A nice verbose explanatory footnote sounds good to me... put the one that your gut feeling says is more accurate into the running text, and explain in the comment. So, something like: "...was broken up in 1818.[See X, Y. A number of American sources, such as A, B, and C record a date of 1817; this may be due to (whatever).]" Shimgray | talk | 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it was the British Admiralty which broke up the President it is likely that they would know the date accurately, whereas what was recorded in US publications would inevitably be simply guesswork. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal now open

The featured article candidacy for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal 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! Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Helgoland now open

The A-Class review for SMS Helgoland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Engine builders and infoboxes

This is something that's been bugging me for a long time, and I feel I have to say something about it. As the ship infobox currently stands, we have a field for the builder but no field for the engine builder. From the late 19th century on, this isn't hugely important because after that time shipbuilders constructed both the hull and the machinery for their ships. However, for earlier 19th century vessels, it's quite inappropriate since most marine engines in this period were supplied by specialist engine builders, not by the shipbuilders themselves.

More to the point, marine engines were by far the most important component of early steamships and steamboats. Almost anyone with some experience in carpentry could build a ship's hull, and shipyards could be set up for no more than a few thousand dollars, as carpenters usually had their own tools and therefore shipyards required little in the way of plant and equipment. Marine engine builders, on the other hand, had to invest hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, in plant and equipment. And this is reflected in the numbers - there were literally hundreds of shipbuilders in the United States in the 19th century, but only a tiny handful of engine builders. By way of example, the Allaire Iron Works alone is said to have supplied the engines for more than 50% of all steamships built in the United States prior to 1836.

Marine engines have been described as perhaps the most complex technology of the 19th century. Without the engine, the entire steamship phenomenon simply doesn't exist.

For these reasons, I feel it is absurd to record the name of the shipbuilder in the infobox of 19th century steamships, but not the name of the engine builder. I would therefore like to propose an additional field in the infobox for the engine builder. There are a number of ways this could be approached, but I thought I would canvas the general idea here first before making any further suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I support that idea. I'd imagine it would look something like this

|Ship engine builder= 

Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Martocticvs (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two existing ways to do this without adding another field to the template. |Ship builder= ABC Company with steam engines by Allaire Iron Works or |Ship propulsion= 4 x Allaire Iron Works steam engines with 2 million horsepower and a big stick. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tried the latter, and it's not really practical, to the point that I stopped including the engine builder in the infobox at all. And "steam engines by" is not going to be as elegant a solution as a discrete field for the engine builder. Gatoclass (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I don't think Mistral (L9013) is named properly, but what should its title be? - BilCat (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

French ship Mistral (L9013) should do the trick. --Brad (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this kind of national ship-category naming. Should every ship be named that way, we'll get American ship ......, Dutch ship ......, German ship .... and even Ship of the Dominican Republic ...... --Stunteltje (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For navies that have never used a ship prefix we have been using the Country of origin as a naming convention. The US Navy and the Royal Navy use the prefix USS and HMS respectively. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Which are official acronyms that mean "United States Ship" and "Her (British) Majesty's Ship" (A better commonwealth example would be HMCS = "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship"), which is more-or-less the same as the naming convention using "German ship", "French ship" etc. -- saberwyn 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also extensive misuse of "USS" that is more than a little "glitch" among Navy people. Only commissioned ships carry that term and it is dropped as soon as that status is lost. It is not a trivial matter in U.S. Navy circles and such misuse shows lack of accuracy. There are commissioned ships with "USS" and other ships "in service" with civilian crews that are U.S. Naval Ship (USNS) and then there are "in service" vessels that carry no designator other than a number. The other real mess here is the use of U.S. Army Transport (U.S.A.T.) for almost every vessel the Army had during WW II. Not so at all. The Army was never quite the stickler the Navy is about USS but the majority of Army vessels were never "USAT" at all. For example, the numerous FS group was simply U.S. Army FS-288 as shown in the linked photo. The tugs and most other general service vessels used the same format. Specialized vessels often carried "U.S. Army" and a special name. At least in some documents and photos that was the case with U.S. Army Cable Ship (USACS) though I know of one photo showing one using USAT, Cable Ship and the name. If Wikipedia is going to be seen as accurate with respect to U.S. ships these items need correction but they are extensive and not all that suitable for bot work. Palmeira (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing with limiting the use of USS to that single use is that those ships whose construction was begun but not completed is a true dilemma. The established convention is to title the article with USS and explain in a footnote as evidenced by FA/A/GAs: USS Illinois (BB-65), USS Kentucky (BB-66), USS Hawaii (CB-3). Such a move to limit the usage of USS to just commissioned would need massive consensus because it has withstood two FACs plus a few A-Class reviews and GANs. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly, it is a serious breach of U.S. Navy convention and ship "etiquette" regardless of Wikipedia FACs and A-Class reviews. Take a look at Naval Historical and Heritage Command, Ship Naming in the United States Navy, A Note on Navy Ship Name Prefixes for exactly how ships under construction are dealt with. It is not good for Wikipedia to decide to go against what is established by Executive Order and Navy Regulations in U.S. Naval usage matters. It will bring lots of eye rolling from Navy experts and certainly does no good to any reputation for accuracy. Wikipedia through such a process could decide to call U.S. states territories if it chooses. This casual usage of "USS" is not too dissimilar, a matter of formal status, and appears amateurish. Perhaps another round of FACS and A-Class reviews is needed for accuracy's sake. Palmeira (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are relative new here, and wikipedia does not follow every single rule that the US Military has established nor do we strive for accuracy in every single detail. The use in the three articles I listed above are for not only convenience with the myriad of other articles, but also because those names are what the majority of persons would search for when looking for that particular ship — not to mention our linking templates: {{USS}}, {{USNS}}, etc. and for appearances in featured topics. Also, the naming is within the regulations set forth by our naming conventions and your moves of ship articles may be going against those. I hereby request that you cease moving articles until a thorough discussion has come up with the proper consensus (Wikipedia is based upon consensus, and everything does need to be discussed). -MBK₀₀₄ 06:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be new here but am far from new to ships, Navy and maritime and military history. My comparison to deciding to call states territories is quite accurate. There is a difference, one having status and legal ramifications. So it is with the formal designation of a ship in or not in commission. You have the cite to a good discussion at NHHC on the facts. Wikipedia can be a "club of buffs" making its own facts out of opinion or it can be a serious group of people trying to present accurate articles. If the former it will deserve the ridicule it sometimes gets--our local schools have a strict ban, automatic fail, for "Wiki cites" by students. So, it is up to this community to decide whether it is going to embarrass itself in knowledgeable circles or not. We all blunder. Intentional factual neglect is serious. I will refrain from further moves but will in no way contribute to intentional error and inaccuracy. As for how users initiate searches? Wikipedia's operational tools of disambiguation and redirect offer better solutions than ever found in hard copy encyclopedias. In my opinion the best thing for the reputation of this group is to strive for accuracy and use the tools to help the uninformed find accuracy. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Palmeira, thanks for engaging in discussion on here, but realize that you are arguing against years of established policies. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but change—if it is to happen—will take some time. Their featured or A-class status should not be affected; it's the policy you have a problem with, not the articles.

Now, on to replying to everyone else here. Ignoring all of the agreed-upon conventions and the arguments for standardization for the moment, Palmeira does have a point. For example, we don't use prefixes like "HIMJS" or anything similar to that because we don't to be a "'club of buffs' making its own facts out of opinion". I'm not sure Palmeira's concerns are all that different. It's not like we don't have a disambiguator if we move the articles—we can use the designations (i.e. "Hawaii (CB-3)") and redirect the old names (i.e. USS Hawaii (CB-3)) to the new.
Does anyone have an idea on how many articles we would be talking about moving here? On first glance I thought it would be a lot, but many of the never-built ships don't have articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

From my read of things, Palmeira is arguing that if any ship does not legally have a "USS" prefix, the article shouldn't. To me, this means that all decommissioned ships (i.e. nothing in active service now, as they no longer legally carry the prefix) need to be moved to a non-prefix title. But I'm Australian, and although a similar case exists in the Royal Australian Navy (ships outside of commission should not be referred to as "HMAS") common usage by the general public, which is who Wikipedia should be catering to, uses the prefix to identify Australian warships at all stages of life. -- saberwyn 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) My misinterpretation of your statements are noted. -- saberwyn 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not even doable without rivaling the NVR and Ship's History Branch at NHHC with their reporting systems to monitor exact current and historical status--and even they slip up now and then on some published detail. I think this is "doable" with redirects to help the casual and often not very enlightened public rather than further muddle the subject. The issue of basic nationality is already handled for "foreign" ships. I think a simple standard without a U.S. slant makes sense generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're sitting in the pentagon and talking about ships, it might be obvious what you mean if you say "the North Carolina". But without additional context, there's no chance that someone would understand what I mean if I say "the North Carolina" (particularly if we're discussing it in North Carolina, where it's now a museum ship). "Battleship North Carolina" and "USS North Carolina" would be understood by most people, I would think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First, in no way would I recommend removing "USS" from a ship here that was once commissioned. Ships move in and out of commission and even Navy will refer to a ship once in commission as "USS (NAME)" for general historic purposes. Being once in commission does have a certain status historically. We can handle those fine points in the info box with dates if necessary. The issue is for ships never commissioned. Let me illustrate the problem here in a more specific way than the state/territory analogy. What would people think if Wikipedia contributors "decided" to no longer make a distinction between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers? A general is an officer and so is a corporal so we treat them all alike because we want to or got started that way and want to continue? You can imagine the ridicule in circles beyond the profession if we decided to simplify and just call everyone above E-1 an officer! There is a distinct and legal difference. I won't go into all the ins, outs and maybes here but in very simplistic terms a ship in commission can attack, stop, board another vessel with only the question of national policy and responsibility--an act of war. There is question, a debated one, since the Declaration of Paris abolished privateering as to whether such an action by a non-commissioned ship is not an illegal privateer and the personnel aboard (remember, no commissioned officer in command either) might be subject to arrest and international trial for piracy. So, yes, it isn't just Naval officers spinning with casual usage. It bears on the status, even if for a time, of a ship as a warship of the United States. I recognize the problem of international users. I would suggest adoption of another way to identify general nationality than adopt such inaccuracy and bring into real question the seriousness of articles. Today I put up an example, an armed Army vessel, FS-255 "commissioned" (on a very notable day in fact) with a Coast Guard crew and had a commissioned officer in command. That ship could never be "USS so there is a similar problem I think I solved. Palmeira (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dank, he's saying that articles like USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66) need to be renamed because, as they were never commissioned, they never legally recived the "USS" prefix. See the notes at the beginning of each article. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to the best of us! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, except the note itself is not entirely accurate. Perhaps the hulls under construction or ships never in commission are "conventionally" referred to as "USS" in some circles. Not so in either official circles or those that really deal with USN interest groups. That is part of my point. Any site claiming non-amateur status on such vessels and matters would be subject of ridicule by its core interest groups of ex-Navy (They really do take this seriously.) and not do what is being done here. Look at some samples: DANFS: Illinois (BB-65), NavSource: BB-66 KENTUCKY and Haze Gray DANFS BB index. Notice that NavSource does use the less strictly accurate, but acceptable, USS for ships that were once in commission as with BB-55 USS North Carolina. That is the pattern I advocate here. We can continue to flaunt lack of awareness or make the fairly minor edits and moves with redirects to join those that follow more accurate Naval usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Palmeira. The Navy Historical Center says uncommissioned vessels are not United States Ships:

The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.[1]

We should not say otherwise. Ilinois was scrapped on the ways and never touched water; the hull was never even a ship, much less a United States Ship. If our practice has been otherwise, we should change it; a misunderstanding is not ameliorated by long usage. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic at hand, it appears that many of the articles in Category:Active naval ships of France do not precisely follow WP:NC-SHIP. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is limited to the use of USS and HMS in articles at the moment I am incline to say that the USS and HMS should stay in the article. Most people in the world use USS and HMS, and in some cases even invent such prefixes, when discussing ships, and it therefore stands to reason that these same people will apply that to the article to which they aim to seek. Under the policy we have of listing names under the common named used I am of the mind that USS and HMS should remain in articles we have for ships never legally built with a provision in the articles in question that the ship was never legally USS or HMS, but that owing to our conventions such prefixes have been added for ease of use. To be fair to all sides, I might suggest that a request for comment be made so both Palmiera's side and our side can be presented to the community and they can decided which should take presidence here in accordance with our views on consensus. I caution though that this is likely to favor the pro USS/HMS crowd since our position has established and has been for some time, but opinions do change over time (otherwise we wouldn't have an FAR(C) process here) and we should respect that this is an issue that may - may I grant - be worth another look. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Tom on and RFC. However, there is another issue, which is directly related to the French ship naming issue, and that is how should the non-USS USN ships articles be titled? Simply dropping the "USS" would make the titles not conform to the WP:NC-SHIP guidelines. Rather than simply Illinois (BB-65), we would have to use American ship Illinois (BB-65) or American battleship USS Illinois (BB-65). I suspect that this was part of the reasoning behind using "USS"or "HMS" for all the ships of the USN/RN in first place. - BilCat (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Im with Palmiera as I understand his position: USS only for ships that were actually USS, redirects for anything else. As for what to do with non-USS USN ships, I have no opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a way has to be settled on for national identity of all national ships (warships, auxiliaries, service craft, coast guards, survey, fishery protection vessels and such) without misuse of the national titles. I would advocate the pattern I used for FS-255 (U.S. Army ship), in part patterned on the "Name (ship)" convention to distinguish ships from the things or people from which they took the name, and the need to distinguish U.S. Army vessels that in most cases had no "title" beyond "U.S. Army" and the number or name and number (The wild misapplication of USAT here is another issue, though without quite the service sensitivity as USS/not USS). My one reservation there, and I think a solution can be found, is that we have NAME (pennant/hull #) in most national ships of all types and brackets have other uses here. I don't know if something like NAME (AA-##) [U.S.N.] might work in general practice or have system consequences. If without a link that works without consequences it might be a solution before or after the name: [U.S.N.] USS NAME (AA-##), [U.S.N.] NAME (AA-##) and so on or just [U.S.] USS NAME (AA-##)? It seems to me the nationality issue should be separate from how the various national naval and other official organizations use titles. In the long term I think it simplifies things and can be made into an extended template fitting most ships rather than unique by nation as: NATIONALITY|TITLE|NAME|NUMBER perhaps. Palmeira (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Switching to something like NATIONALITY|TITLE|NAME|NUMBER would take article naming to a whole new level of unnecessary complexity (to say nothing of failing WP:PRECISION). Additionally, as WP:COMMONNAME indicates, the common usage of a name "is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." As such, I do not see any need for major changes to the ship naming conventions, other than perhaps coming up with something to address the non-USAT ships used by the Army. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Most ship articles already add those elements and my proposal below provides for any to remain blank. In the most strict "precision" terms we would only include a name. Take that to its logical end, using the Apollo program example, and we should only be using the DANFS model for U.S.N. ships. That would, in strictly Navy terms, be correct. I would agree it is overkill here where people, unlike those going to DANFS, may not even know the ship is U.S.N. in the first place and non U.S.N. vessels are included. Non-commissioned ships never had the name "USS anything" beyond perhaps mistaken and poorly informed popular use. The "USS" is a formal title of address as "Honorable" is for certain elected officials or "Mr." and "MS." for a person prefixed to a ship's actual name. It is a formal sign of status, or past status, as a commissioned warship of the United States. Since "USS" isn't actually part of the ship's name adding it at all is a precision issue. Palmeira (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on RFC, as article names are driven firstly by common name and secondly by individual guidelines which are there for consistencty and ease not absolute accuracy - lack of commissioning being a technical point to most readers. On naming though, if necessary I would go with Illinois (BB-65) or Battleship BB-65 as the article name. I could equally make a point that a ship only part built has little history and most its specs and background are already covered by the article on the class as a whole. To that end the content could be folded into the class article and the individual (unbuilt) ship article deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, can you see my comment below? Our conventions aren't very driven by common names; if they were, no article would be named with the style "(country) (ship type) (name) (designation)". :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Never ending discussions

I should point out that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) has a lot of similar conversations on this topic. More recently there were conversations here and here. I also pointed out the need for a solid proposal in order to resolve the issue. Far too often there is a lot of discussion but no resolution because there is no follow through. I'm no longer convinced the standing conventions are as correct as they should be; especially the issue over using prefixes. --Brad (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Users making up their own conventions is certainly not going to help the situation any. However, I think the system being used by Pal may be simpler/better than the current one, and is worth considering in any new proposals. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's go for it and not let this extend further into another of those. I just took a better look at those discussions you referenced. Yes, there is a time period factor as well. The USS doesn't even go back all that far in our young nation and when we get to Europe we can go back centuries. Being a newbie I am not familiar with the RFC process here (large systems yes) but would hope it involves some estimation of the extent of the change and seeks to simplify, minimize "cost" and work toward a global rather than piecemeal solution. Here is my almost top of the head recommendation. Parse the basic ship identification elements needed for a title and keeping disambiguation and redirects as simple as possible. Shoot for a single template model, though national ones might eventually be desirable as standard options. For example: {Nationality | National designator | Name | Pennant/Hull # | Year} with any element a possible blank, nationality perhaps the common current name or abbreviation with room for pre modern state and such. Thus the same template could fit a modern vessel or Vasa (ship), i.e. {Swedish|(blank)|Vasa|(blank)|1627}, {U.S.|USS|Seawolf|SSN-21|(blank)} or {U.S.|USAMP|Major General Wallace F. Randolph|MP-7|1942} as possible examples. Perhaps "(ship)" could be a given in such a template? Palmeira (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that {{ship}} fills most of those needs? Vasa (ship) is easily rendered in wiktext ([[Vasa (ship)|''Vasa'']]), but the others are easy. {Ship|USS|Seawolf|SSN-21} (aka {USS|Seawolf|SSN-21}), for one.

I think that the naming conventions are mostly wonderful until this sticky point. BTW, if we were going with all of the popular names, we wouldn't be using the "(country) (ship type) (name) (designation)" system, now would we? As such, are we certain that names like American ship Illinois (BB-65) and American cruiser Hawaii (CB-3) are really that evil, given that they will at least be more correct?

I think that much more discussion between project members would be prudent before we trouble the community with an RfC. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a large number of French, British and Russian ships of periods that don't have pennant numbers or whatever and I'm quite content with the current naming conventions which use ship type to distinguish between the Russian battleship Borodino and the Russian battlecruiser Borodino with an additional qualifier for year if necessary. I see no need to change the current system as I don't really care if a ship was ever formally given a USS title or not. And I'm certainly indifferent to any ridicule that ex-Navy types might extend our way for not adhering to such technicalities. What we have now works well enough, with a few exceptions, and we need to just leave it alone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I might as well get in this act also and throw in one more concern. Palmeira is certainly correct, that "USS" is applied in cases where it should not be. Wikipedia is operating under two constraints, however: its articles are to be both accurate and accessible. In the public mind, so far as I can read it, any warship owned or operated by the US Navy is a United States ship, and therefore has the designator "USS." That is a simplification at present, and is clearly not proper in many cases. It has the advantage of simplicity, however, and simplicity becomes even more of a virtue when it is extended back into the past. Until the early days of the 20th century, applying the designation "ship" to almost anything that floats would have been incomprehensible, so the prefix that was used was of form "US {vessel type}," where the type could be either the combat classification (frigate, corvette, sloop-of-war, etc.) or the rig (brig, ship, schooner, etc.). Consider as an example the case of USS (sic) Cumberland. When first commissioned, she was a frigate, and she was referred to as US frigate Cumberland. Sometime later she was razeed and reclassified as a sloop-of-war (defining the distinction between a frigate and a sloop-of-war is left as an exercise for the student). Properly, therefore, at the Battle of Hampton Roads she should have been labeled US sloop-of-war Cumberland. You can see where this is leading; the prefix "USS" is anachronistic at best, just plain wrong at worst, but it makes things a great deal easier, particularly for modern readers who do not really know the distinctions among types of vessels.

Of course, the requirement of accuracy remains. The matter of accessibility can be addressed by appropriate redirects, and for my part I am willing to bend my future edits to conform to clearly established policy. (Past edits will have to be examined case by case, and each will have to await its turn.)

The point of this comment is just to be sure that all the facts are on the table before any decisions are made. Personally, I side with Palmeira, but I believe that his position, if adopted, will create a lot of work that others may not consider to be justified.

By the way, does the designator "HMS" have a similar evolutionary history? - PKKloeppel (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if any thing even more convoluted. HMS only appears in the 1780s, prior to then ships were labelled by any number of descriptive appellations usually but not always based on their rig, but potentially their classification as well, or other combinations. 'HM sloop xxx', His Britannic Majesty's frigate xxx', etc. It would be historically more accurate to bend the titles of our articles to refer to a bomb vessel launched in 1690 for example as 'His Britannik Majesties' bomb Lightning', as this was how they were actually referred to by their contemporaries but this would create a terrible mishmash of titles. Depending on which sources were used, you could find several different ways of referring to the same vessel. Far better to remain with our current policy. This argument that some naval academics are chortling into their coffee or rolling their eyes in disgust at how wikipedia is using USS to refer to uncompleted battleships is unconvincing. First of all I can't imagine they care. Second if they did wikipedia is not written only for them. And thirdly, we are by no means obligated to follow their style guides and regulations, no more than other institution can automatically oblige wikipedia's manuals of style to follow their rules, no matter how prestigious and venerable they are. This seems more to be an argument over whether ships that were not commissioned into the US Navy should be titled with the prefix or not. This seems to be a valid point of discussion, let's sort that out and move on. Benea (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's debate whether never-built U.S. Navy ships should receive the "USS" moniker; the other debate should be discussed at another time. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "never commissioned" instead of "never built"? That is the issue. To clarify things, I do not recommend some massive effort here to go back and rapidly correct every case. The ships never commissioned tend to be in certain "commercial" type hulls such as those U.S. Army Engineer Port Repair Ships that I moved to some protest here. Some of those were accepted by the Navy, itself only supervising construction after turn over from Maritime Commission, and turned over to the Army the same day. Most of the others are in various yard and utility craft rarely covered here--and they probably should be covered as a group anyway as few yard craft have notable histories. A move with full redirects using the old USS WHATEVER name as found or next edited instead of some massive effort makes sense. I venture to say that I could target and find many of those rather quickly by using the likely groups and would be willing to work on that a bit, particularly if I continue my interest in working the Army vessels, if we decide to make the correction. Then, take care in any new articles to use the correct usage with a redirect for the name some uninformed member of the public would use. Lastly, on the historic ships there is something of an out. The famous ones dealt with here are most probably all ships that were commissioned even if the USS prefix had not been thought of yet. In the spirit of the honorific I doubt even that Captain would get ruffled using USS for one of our great frigates. An updated, educational note might be in order still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Most popular ship pages

Using the list of popular pages as a guide, listed there are the 500 top visited articles for the month of December. I do not see any ship on that list that would fall into the scope of this discussion which is the debate over USS being used on ships that were never commissioned into the US Navy. I think the statistics point out that the few ships that we have articles on with militarily incorrect naming protocols aren't gathering all that much attention. I think we're giving this issue too much importance when there doesn't seem to be any from the general reading public. --Brad (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret this discussion, but I get the feeling that it's extremely partial to modern (1800-), and primarily US and British, naval history. As soon as we start moving out in the realm of early modern European vessels in general very little of what has been discussed seems to apply. Without diverting too much of the discussion that belongs on the convention talkpage what exactly do you plan on doing with articles about ships with names like Padre Eterno, Kronan or De Zeven Provincien?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to use a year of launching qualifier as we already do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So what's the point of HMS Antelope (1546)?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The point? You indicate the point above. It is application of a very recent standard, itself sometimes not accurately applied, to all history. In my view it is pandering to ignorance perceived in the general public, a demonstration of less than "encyclopedic" standards for articles or both. Palmeira (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are enough editors agreeing with the change to institute that change; therefore: We should change the naming conventions to say that US Navy ships that were never commissioned into service should not carry the prefix USS in the article title. Campaigning on other topics are not relevant to this change. --Brad (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Before this slips away again unresolved I believe it is high time we put some consensus to the issue. Although there have been several issues brought up in this thread the one that appears most important is using the USS prefix in an article title for US Navy ships that were never commissioned into service. So we'll attempt to decide here. --Brad (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree

We should change the naming conventions to say that US Navy ships that were never commissioned into service should not carry the prefix USS in the article title.

1. Per my comments above. It won't be consistent, but it will be right, which is what counts. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I think I can probably go along with that. It's an issue that's been bothering me a little too quite frankly. Gatoclass (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
3. I agree this is the correct way to do it. With the obvious caveat that they not be removed from a "USS Example" disambiguation page if one exists.Horrorshowj (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree. There are some similar problems with USN blimps that were never commissioned but have USS prefixes in Wiki articles. Haus^Talk 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Agree, insofar as the stricture applies to the modern (say, post-Dreadnought) era. I foresee problems that will probably have to be handled on an ad hoc basis if we try to extend it back into the past. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Agree, we are not talking about a great many articles, and the ones we are talking about arent that important. Bonewah (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Agree with all of the above (but unsure about PKK's caveat). Kablammo (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

   The problem is that no nominally correct (that is, officially prescribed) usage was in effect before 1907. People in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were much more colloquial in their communications, including official documents. Using "USS" became common certainly no later than the Civil War. (The use of "CSS" for Confederate vessels opens a whole new can of worms.) If Wikipedia pedantically insists on applying 21st century conventions to the historical past, we will be in the position of second-guessing the US government (among others), and not just the untutored public. PKKloeppel (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Agree with Ed. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Of course I agree as I guess I am the "culprit" kicking this round off. I think the policy here should be pragmatic, though perhaps not absolutely "correct" by USN standards. No "USS" for ships never commissioned but maintain the honorific for those commissioned at some time or in commission. Sort of like "Mr. President" applying to past holders of the office and not to distinguished candidates for the office. As for the "into the past" issue remember "USS" is itself early 20th Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
10. I was originally not going to vote, because of my minimal knowlege/interest/interaction with USS-prefixed articles, but Brad's comment on lack of participation below has risen me from my indifferent stupour. I believe that the correct preceeding qualifier (prefix, otherwise, or lack thereof), as opposed to an incorrect-but-common qualifier should be used on ship articles, which I guess places me in the "Agree" group. Any incorrect-but-common uses (which in this case, I think would include USS for a non-commissioned US Navy ship) should still be 'accounted for' through the use of redirects and disambiguation page entries (as per Horrorshowj). -- saberwyn 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Needs to be correct, not consistent. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree

We should not change the naming convention and continue to use the USS prefix in article titles even if the US Navy ship was never commissioned.

1. I'm of the opinion that the article names should stay where they are because people have in their heads that ships need a prefix, and therefore most are going to use USS to find a US ship. I do not fancy having to spend the next several years explaining to people again and again and again why a name for a US ship isn't at USS name. That said, I'll bow to consensus on the matter whatever that may end up being. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   Tom, the notes that are in the articles at present could be easily modified to explain the absence of the prefix. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Consistency is more important to me. If we get down to brass tacks, the executive order mandating the standardized usage of USS did not take place until 1907. While it would technically be more correct, I also do not want to see us rename the previous 131 years worth of ships to U.S. Frigate, United States Barque, United States Flag-Ship, and the lot. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

   See my comment to Kablammo (item no. 7 above). PKKloeppel (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, I remain unconvinced and continue to view the proposed change as a slippery slope. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Per TomStar. I really don't think that it will stand over too well with people if we started moving "USS X" to just "X." Personally, I think that it would imply a demilitarization of the article. Why would we also go against the government's standards, as they are usually the ones who we follow when we want to write an article. Going against the man in a way could possibly create confusion amongst editors who are trying to create or collaborate on articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

   You ask "Why would we also go against the government's standards, as they are usually the ones who we follow"? You do realize that the proposal is to change a popular, incorrect practice to more closely match the U.S. Navy standard don't you? The current "everything" USS is most definitely not the USN standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs)

4. I see no reason to follow a technicality in naming conventions by the USN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

   A "technicality" of the naming authority. Those ships do after all belong to the U.S. and the USN. They are formally named and in some respects the name carries legal meaning and status. An "encyclopedic" venture failing to recognize that for some things there actually are naming authorities. Oh well, maybe we should just start naming articles about states by their nicknames, cities too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmeira (talk • contribs)

   Your sarcasm here does you little good here. Technically the Navy didn't the USS prefix before 1907, so we should change every relevant ship article's name if we take your argument to its logical extent. I find it curious that you're so insistent on one aspect of the Navy's naming conventions, but so willing to ignore the rest of it as you see fit. The primary responsibility here is to deliver value to the readers so we need to use names generally recognizable to the average reader rather than adhere to the quirks of the owners or manufacturers. That makes the USS Maine (ACR-1) a better article title, if technically incorrect. So, no, a thousand times no!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Per Kralizec!'s slippery slope, TomStar81, and Sturmvogel 66 -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Since I've initiated the consensus gathering I'm not going to agree or disagree until some time has passed. I don't want to be perceived as campaigning one way or the other. We can discuss what to do afterward. --Brad (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Will the results of this not-a-vote be applicable to other naval forces ship prefixes, or is it only the United States Navy that will be affected by the new rule? -- saberwyn 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is only about US Navy ships for now. --Brad (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is disappointing. Would be nice if more editors added their opinion. At this point I don't see an overwhelming consensus. --Brad (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. Haus^Talk 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are several hundred members between ships and milhist this is indeed disappointing and hardly a consensus. Why an argument over an issue brings more activity than an attempt to resolve the argument is beyond me. Some of the editors that were most vocal in the above debate haven't bothered to register an agreement. And to rant on further, some of the long time ships participants have avoided any involvement. --Brad (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting in earlier. I've been way off into other stuff--some of it ship research--for some time and still deep in it. Would have missed it if not for an e-mail and forgot to "sign" above. Palmeira (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the consensus is favorable toward accuracy here I hope the point made by Horrorshowj (#3) that a disambiguation page is required is a part. An encyclopedia must help those without precise knowledge find the subject and gain knowledge. The point made by Bonewah (#6) is also accurate. A named Navy ship that was never commissioned is almost by definition obscure and usually a minor service craft, often spending most of its USN "career" in reserve or other inactive status. Some were USN only for days or even hours, basically a paper transaction, as seen with the M.C. type N3 hulls I changed in the U.S. Army Engineer Port Repair Ship group that started this latest USS thing.Palmeira (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1907

I am actually leaning towards disagreeing based on this comment by User:Pkkphysicist:

The problem is that no nominally correct (that is, officially prescribed) usage was in effect before 1907. People in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were much more colloquial in their communications, including official documents. Using "USS" became common certainly no later than the Civil War. ...If Wikipedia pedantically insists on applying 21st century conventions to the historical past, we will be in the position of second-guessing the US government (among others), and not just the untutored public.

so I want to be sure I understand it correctly. While I have don't have a problem with not using for non-commissioned vessels, what is the stance on commissioned vessels prior to the standardised use of prefixes like USS and HMS? Does the comment that 'Wikipedia pedantically insists on applying 21st century conventions to the historical past' mean that ships like the original six frigates (for example) and other pre-1907 vessels should not referred to with the prefix as well? And as an aside, what will articles like USS Illinois (BB-65) now be titled? I don't really see what the problem is with keeping it at its actual title - we are saying that she would have been USS Illinois had she ever been completed. If the USS goes, surely the name should as well, as though it was assigned she wasn't officially named that. I would agree though that ships that existed but were not commissioned should obviously not carry the prefix if they never used it during their career. Benea (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We're quickly losing focus here. All that is being decided upon is if US Navy ships that were never commissioned should carry the USS prefix in the article title. What we decide to do (if anything) about US Navy ships prior to the 1907 directive can be discussed later. There are no plans for a mass renaming and moving campaign which can also be discussed later. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That was what I initially thought, so I wanted to be clear that PKKphysicist is not advocating abolishing the use of the prefix for pre-1907 ships. I can see that practice quickly spilling over into the ships of other navies, with particular problems. But keeping the focus on ships that were never commissioned, this will presumably include the never completed ships like Illinois and Kentucky. Will they lose their names and/or prefixes (which they never carried), or will the practice be to title them with the name and/or the prefix they would have borne had they entered service? And depending on the answer to that, just how will they be titled? American battleship hull BB-65? American battleship Illinois (BB-65), or one of a number of variations? Benea (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately when others interject off topic opinions it's one of the reasons why we've never been able to settle anything in this long term and ongoing debate. To answer your question.. I'm not exactly sure how we should handle articles like Illinois and Kentucky. I know that both ships were given hull numbers and both were given names but never commissioned. I'm not aware of any US Navy ships that began construction without at least a hull number being assigned and most of them began construction with a name. With that in mind I can imagine Illinois having a title of Illinois (BB-65) and to appease the common idea, USS Illinois (BB-65) will stand as a redirect. --Brad (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When I !voted oppose above, I was thinking of exactly the same thing that Benea is talking about here: the mass-renaming of pre-1907 ships as well as vessels from other navies. Serge tried to force this on us in 2008 with his crusade to "avoid preemptive disambiguation" ([2], [3]) and -IMHO- this proposal would start us back on that slippery slope. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1907 is another discussion for another time. I would be against messing with pre-1907 US Navy ships but I don't see how deciding on US Navy ships that were never commissioned has any effect to pre-1907. --Brad (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is my writing so opaque? When I voted in favor of the proposal, I explicitly said that it should apply only to the modern era. The entire point is that after 1907 the "USS" prefix has a legal interpretation, and can be denied to ships that do not meet the legal standard. I am trying to avoid the same slippery slope that others worry about, and in fact I think that there is less harm in letting "USS Illinois" pass than there would be in mandating a rename for "USS Cumberland," for example. If the US Navy in 1945 and thereafter said that Illinois was not USS Illinois, we should take that into account (not necessarily to agree, by the way). The Navy itself, however, used the prefix in the colloquial manner in the 19th century, and I do not want 21st century pedants to insist that the 19th century Navy had no right to do what it did. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This consensus has nothing to do with the issue over pre-1907 nor is it a door to deciding about pre-1907. As I've said already, what we decide to do after forming a consensus is something to be discussed later. --Brad (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Navy even now can be found using the "USS" for ships long gone by the time that term became formal. For a specific example see Naval History and Heritage Command's page USS General Putnam (1861-1865). The ship was scrapped in 1885 after lighthouse service. The point is the ship had been in commission and modern Naval historians are using the honorific prefix for a commissioned ship on an official Navy History site known for its authority in such matters.The USN has naming authority and standards for its ships and a serious reference should follow those policies within reason. Reasonable here seems to be if a ship were never commissioned it does not carry USS in association with its name. We need not apply any more restrictive standard than not applying that prefix for a ship never in commission to be as correct. Palmeira (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- I've been keeping an eye on this discussion for a while now, but haven't weighed in just yet. I have mixed feelings about the proposal and can see the merit in both arguments. One thing I'd like clarified is what exactly we're going to do with the affected articles if the proposal passes. I'd be more comfortable supporting the idea if I had a better idea of what I would be supporting. I believe it was Benea who raised the point above that since BB-65 was never even launched, she was never formally named Illinois. That, to me, has the same merit as the argument that since the ship was never commissioned she shouldn't have the "USS" prefix.

I don't see a problem with retaining the ship name, but I'd like to see that decided before I !vote. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have tried to gather some consensus on what to actually do with the articles once it was decided how to prefix them. But I still don't see any danger in making the decision and figuring out what to do later on. To my knowledge there has never been a post 1907 US Navy ship that wasn't named before or during construction. Illinois was named before and during construction so it is established as Illinois (BB-65). --Brad (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the prefix is removed, the naming format should fall back onto the general warship naming conventions, ("For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)"), so this would result in "United States battleship Illinois" (with or without the BB-65 qualifier as appropriate), or "United States battleship BB-65" (if the argument that she was never formally named wins out). -- saberwyn 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Sparrowhawk (1856) created

I created this because it was mentioned on Porcher Island, which was named for its Commander; copy in the article is directly copied from the Porcher Island article; no doubt there's more history to be added from the Far East etc....I didn't know the right categories/stubs etc so if someone would oblige, please add what's needed.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier now open

The peer review for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)