Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Ships - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nowakki (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 24 January 2023 (→ship launches: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:34, 24 January 2023 by Nowakki (talk | contribs) (→ship launches: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ships and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
WikiProject iconShips Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Main Project Page
Things you can do
Information and sources
Article statistics
WP 1.0 bot39562

PROD of Ship List page

It was surprising to see Warre (ship) subject to a WP:PROD on the grounds that the list only had one blue-linked entry. I have removed the PROD and added reasons to the Talk page. Davidships (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge of coastal minehunter to minehunter

I put a suggestion on the coastal minehunter page for a merge to the minehunter page. I'm not sure it is a subject that requires its own page. Any comments welcome. Llammakey (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merger

USS Tempest (1862) has been proposed for merging into List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy. Discussion is located at Talk:List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy#Merge proposal - 1.10.2022. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Any admins out there?

We have a user posting from various IPs, all to naval ship articles, and while some edits are ok, others are problematic, but beyond that, the summaries are all a.a.f. eg;

I'm sure there are other edits from other IP accounts, with the same kind of summaries, and most likely on the same subject. If anyone comes across any, feel free to add to the list. Meanwhile, do any of the helpful admins that usually pop in here from time to time, have any ideas to put forward about this? Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf 06:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Two "appear to be" Turkish IPs, and the other Kuwaiti, although I agree they look pretty similar, and it could just be a dynamic or VPN. A range block wouldn't be useful, so I think revert on sight any dubious edits, and if they do more than say five dubious edits on one IP address, just report them. You can ping me in such cases, I'll happily take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there any articles that might benefit from either a PBLOCK or semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The short answer is: probably not yet. Only once or twice have they edited an article more than once, (that I see with these three IPs). But I'm sure I've seen these "I promise this or that"-type nonsense summaries before, so that's another reason I posted here, to make others aware. Cheers - wolf 18:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: if it gets to the point where action is needed, let me know. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks - wolf 04:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

point lobos

can someone familiar with rules + regulations of ship naming make the connection here?

Earl King, Ernest Ramsay, and Frank Conner

List of Empire ships (U–Z)#Empire Wagtail

seems obvious to me, but then i am asking myself why the connection has not yet been made.

thanks a nunch Nowakki (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It would help if you explained which of the ship's names you are talking about and the connection you believe there is between these events. You have linked articles saying a ship was named Point Lobos in 1931, a murder happened on the ship in the 1930s and the ship was renamed Empress Wagtail at the start of WWII. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
There has been more than one ship under the name "Point Lobos".
https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?172669
Using Lloyd's pages given on the page above, is that enough to establish that Point Lobos, anchored in Alameda in 1936, was built in Tacoma in 1919.
For a different "Point Lobos", see for example Albina Engine & Machine Works#World War I Nowakki (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
There have only been two Point Lobos, the first was the Alameda one launched in 1918 and renamed to Ernest H. Meyer in 1929, the second was launched in 1919 as Ossining and took the name Point Lobos in 1933 becoming Empire Wagtail in 1941 Lyndaship (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The event in Alameda was in 1936. So it's the other way around, no? Nowakki (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry eye jump. Try again. There have only been two Point Lobos, the first was launched by Albina in Portland Oregon in 1918 and renamed to Ernest H. Meyer in 1929, the second was launched by Todd in Tacoma in 1919 as Ossining and took the name Point Lobos in 1933 becoming Empire Wagtail in 1941
So, when someone gets around to writing the article on SS Point Lobos (1919), that incident can be included. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
i added it to the empire wagtail stub. whoever chooses to should be able to find it there. Nowakki (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Empire ships

What makes USS West Hobomac (ID-3335) different from Empire ships? Except that it did not have an "Empire X" name? It was also transferred by the Minister of War Transport (MoWT) in 1940 and given a British flag.

If there is no substantial difference, that would make "Empire ship" a misleading category. Nowakki (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The Empire ships were only linked by being prefixed "Empire". They were an assortment of different types- cargo ships, tankers, tug, ocean liners etc. They were not a standard design like Fort ships, Liberty ships, Park Ships, Victory ships etc. West Hobomac was not an an Empire ship. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
West Hobomac was also not one of those WW2 standard designs. There lies my problem. A guy giving names to ships has created an arbitrary category. The group of "a random sample of some of the ships" that sailed for Britain. Nowakki (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I've added some categories to the article. I believe these are now all correct and no additions or deletions need to be made. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
there should be a list of empire ships that are not named "Empire X". Nowakki (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Pre-Cold War French Navy pennant numbers

I've been diving deep into Roberts, Stephen S. (2021). French Warships in the Age of Steam 1859–1914: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Barnsley, UK: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5267-4533-0. recently and Appendix I covers what we've been using as pennant numbers. Before the Cold War these were strictly used for budgetary purposes, not to identify ships. Thus they are not "pennant numbers" as we define them. The French Navy did use pennant numbers on some ships in the interwar period to show unit assignments, but these differed from the budgetary numbers. Therefore we need to delete these so-called pennant numbers from article titles and revert to year of launch for any required disambiguators. Thoughts? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If they are not pennant numbers then they should not be used as such. There is a lot of leeway in the guidelines for this wikiproject, but if they are not pennant numbers, that would mean that another type of number would have to added to the disambiguation text in the guidelines and those numbers would have to be explained in the text somewhere and we end up down a huge rabbit hole just on the guidelines page. If we talk about the article, then if that number is used as a disambiguator, it has to have some importance and once again, needs to be explained somewhere in the text. It is better just to go with launch year and avoid all that. Even if we ignore the guidelines page, those "pennant numbers" would still need to be explained in the article. Llammakey (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Much prefer the constant of a launch year as opposed to a potential variable of a pennant number for dabs. The only articles affected dabwise I think are those for submarines Lyndaship (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

New article DSV Limiting Factor

Just expanded a draft and moved it into mainspace as DSV Limiting Factor. I am reasonably familiar with ships, but not so much with writing articles about specific vessels, so would appreciate if someone who has a few good articles to their name would take a look and leave any comments or suggestions they feel appropriate on the talk page. Also, I tried to rate it at C-class, which worked for all the projects except ships, where it got a start rating. I assume the project has some automated rating system overriding the human rater somehow. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Help needed

Which is the identity of the ship that the Kriegsmarine requisitioned as "Schiff 4", later V 1801 Wandrahm and V 6114 Eismeer? Was it SS Wandrahm (1920), SS Wandrahm (1927) or something else? The German Misplaced Pages has a list of ships with the designation "Schiff", which has a couple of references. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Although it seems that the "Schiff.." vessels were of a variety of types, including a few trawlers, deWP describes her as a "freighter", and Miramar lists the 1927 Stettin-built cargo ship as "WANDRAHM - 39 SCHIFF 4 - 40 V.1801 - 40 EISMEER - 46 ONEGA" (for last name under Soviet ownership, also see LR 1969). No other freighter candidate found in the right period and assume that your 1920 ship was the 239grt trawler completed in 1921. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant volumes of Gröner, and the available snippets do not reveal enough. Davidships (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Davidships, that gives me something to work from. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I've found the webpage in Russian which gives some history of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Good find - and looks usable, by specialist columnist in an established newspaper. Davidships (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

joshua hendy turbines

Joshua Hendy Iron Works licence-built Westinghouse steam turbines in World War 2. A portion of C1-B of Consolidated Steel, and Victory ships of various Kaiser yards used them. Asking if anyone is sitting on a database or document that details what ships were using those engines.

PS: if anyone can weigh in on the problem of which C1-B were produced at the Wilmington and Long Beach yards of Consolidated Steel, where sources just can't agree amongst themselves, that would be fantastic. Nowakki (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As you have the ship names in Colton, have you correlated those with their entries in Merchant Vessels of the United States?
Another place to check for that, and for the engines, is Lloyd's Register (for example, in 1947 LR, Cape Trinity, Cape Tryon and Cape Victory are shown as all from Wilmington; but Cape Tryon had a Joshua Hendy engine, and the other two had Westinghouses). Main site here is, I think, quicker for browsing - but for those lost before 1947, you can check via here selecting "digitised Lloyd's register" instead of "Full catalogue" and adding ship name alongside. Hope that helps. Davidships (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
a conflict between Merchants of the United States and LLoyd's, how would that be best resolved? Nowakki (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't expressing any preference; I think that depends on what you find. Unfortunately we cannot tell what sources the late Tim Colton relied on. Davidships (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Davidships: what about miramar. does it not contain this kind of information? Nowakki (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, so far as the yard is concerned (but no engine-builders). I had a quick look - Miramar has 17 built at Long Beach (Yd 156-159, 238, 277-279, 332-336, 539, 756-758), while Colton has just the first seven of these. Davidships (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
does miramar have keel laying dates and launch dates for all of them? Nowakki (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Nowakki, you can get a free ticket to Miramar via the Misplaced Pages library Lyndaship (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What is a submarine?

Proper definition with reliable source needed. See Talk:Submarine#Inadequate definition Anyone here with access to good technical sources? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 16:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ship launches

List of ship launches in 1918 is being made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons.

The standard layout of these pages is not good to begin with. Nowakki (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please articulate what you mean by, "made worse for arbitrary OCD reasons?" I can't see any prior discussion on the article's talk page so it is unclear what the specific issue is. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
before https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_ship_launches_in_1918&oldid=1132814663
after List of ship launches in 1918
i am referring to the order of columns and the purging of row coalescing. Nowakki (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Mjroots:, the user who made the edits in question. The first step should have been to talk to them directly. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a standard format for lists of ship launches used across the majority of the 330 lists. I'm merely putting non-standard lists into the standard format. A slight variance in date format can be tolerated. With the 1918 list, this includes the removal of bare urls and flagcruft. A major reason that standardisation is good is that it makes editing easier when working from book sources such as Mitchell & Sawyer's The Empire Ships. For the record, I do not have OCD. Mjroots (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
there will be more flags on that page once you are finished. Nowakki (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories: