Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 55: Line 55:
:Endorse proposers view. [[User:Lyndaship|Lyndaship]] ([[User talk:Lyndaship|talk]]) 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:Endorse proposers view. [[User:Lyndaship|Lyndaship]] ([[User talk:Lyndaship|talk]]) 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::Agree that articles on ships should focus on the vessel, but worth noting that the history and conduct of the crew is sometimes a meaningful part of the history of the vessel as a whole. This is particularly the case in some early modern navies where (for example) the fame, social connections and longevity of individual captains was instrumental in determining if the vessel could muster enough people to serve aboard, be included in major fleets and/or be given licence to cruise for enemies versus being assigned to convoys. The captains in question aren't usually notable enough for their own articles, but ''are'' often notable in the context of the ship's career. Just something to bear in mind if we draft new guidelines that broadly seeks to remove their names. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::Agree that articles on ships should focus on the vessel, but worth noting that the history and conduct of the crew is sometimes a meaningful part of the history of the vessel as a whole. This is particularly the case in some early modern navies where (for example) the fame, social connections and longevity of individual captains was instrumental in determining if the vessel could muster enough people to serve aboard, be included in major fleets and/or be given licence to cruise for enemies versus being assigned to convoys. The captains in question aren't usually notable enough for their own articles, but ''are'' often notable in the context of the ship's career. Just something to bear in mind if we draft new guidelines that broadly seeks to remove their names. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Again, anything notable about the ship, including any otherwise non-notable crew involvement in that notable occurence, should be included. I'm not looking to prohibit any notable content related to the ship. I was just looking for something a little more direct and on point than NOTNEWS to deal with the constant, random additions of non-notable crew, (such as junior officers taking command of a non-capital ship, etc.). Something similar to [[WP:SHE4SHIPS]] at [[WP:NCS]], but perhaps in [[WP:SHIPMOS]], that speaks to the preference for ship article content to be about the ship and not non-notable crew. - [[User:Thewolfchild|<span style="color: black">wolf</span>]] 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Historical perspective is one thing, but listing active-duty run-of-the-mill officers in the ship articles does not serve any purpose unless these people have been involved in a "notable incident" or are notable enough on their own for a separate article. [[User:Tupsumato|Tupsumato]] ([[User talk:Tupsumato|talk]]) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Historical perspective is one thing, but listing active-duty run-of-the-mill officers in the ship articles does not serve any purpose unless these people have been involved in a "notable incident" or are notable enough on their own for a separate article. [[User:Tupsumato|Tupsumato]] ([[User talk:Tupsumato|talk]]) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

===Related subject===
Last November, we had a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 52#Lists of Commanding_Officers|discussion]] about the "List(s) of Commanding Officers" that were popping up on various naval ship articles. The consensus was to remove these lists, as the preference was to have notable COs (if there were any) added to the article prose with a link to their BLP. Some of these lists did not have any notable officers, some were added to newer ships, such as Burke-class destroyers where the few COs a ship had, were CDRs and not at all likely to have any notability. Some pages even had lists of NCOs, such as COBs. There was some discussion about making changes to SHIPMOS to reflect this consensus, but the discussion was archived before any specific changes could be proposed. As this is basically related to the topic of this section, I thought I raise the issue again. If we are to make changes/additions to SHIPMOS about non-notable crew and/or these CO lists, perhaps now would be a good time to for proposals.

*Proposal #1: {{tq|Articles about ships should focus on the ship, not her crew. Non-notable crew members, including commanding officers, should not be added to a ship article, unless they are part of a notable, reliably sourced event that involves the ship, or played an integral role in the notable history of a ship. An exception would be commanding officers that are notable per [[WP:MILPERSON]], in which case they should be included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their BLP page.}} This would address non-notable crew in general. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here.

*Proposal #2: {{tq|Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, only those notable per [[WP:MILPERSON]] should be noted in the article. This would preclude creating sub-sections with lists of commanding officers, as the preference is to have notable commanding officers included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their BLP page.}} This would address the specific issue of lists of commanding officers. Perhaps a shortcut such as "PROSENOTLISTS" would work here.

These proposals are not mutually exclusive. As proposer, I would obviously support both. But I'm sure other editors here could have other, even better ideas, and I would like to see more proposals. The idea is just to have some guidance to help make maintaining these articles a little easier. (This is also where the shortcuts come in; if you're going to revert someone's edits, a shortcut in the edit summary is helpful). Thanks - [[User:Thewolfchild|<span style="color: black">wolf</span>]] 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


== FYI ==
== FYI ==

Revision as of 04:16, 24 September 2018

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 ShipsShips articlesWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

HMS Pentstemon or HMS Penstemon?

What is the correct official spelling of these two ships? Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. who I would normally accept gives them as Penstemon but every other book I have (Colledge- WW2 warships, Conways 1922-1946, Le Fleming WW1 warships and Dittmar/Colledge British warships 1914-1919) refers to Pentstemon. Uboat.net also agrees with Pentstemon, otherwise google results have a mix of the two with probably more for Penstemon. I understand that I can post a footnote about dispute between RS on the article but that doesn't resolve how the SI page should be titled Lyndaship (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The flower is spelled Penstemon. Pentstemon has been tagged as a misspelling since September 2015. wikt:pentstemon hasn't been created; neither has wikt:Pentstemon. wikt:penstemon and wikt:Penstemon both have entries. Can it be confirmed that the ships were named after the flower? Is Pentstemon a legitimate alternative spelling? It's possible that if one source misspelled it that misspelling could propagate to other sources if they use the erroneous source as their source. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pentstemon is a legitimate alternative spelling (see the History section in the article, which explains the difference). The WWII ship appears to have Pentstemon painted on the side. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
errm - that's WWI not WWII.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - in my defense, it was early here ;) Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Navy list uses of Pentstemon include [1] and Pentstemon [2] - so it looks like both spellings were in use.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were there just two ships that used this name, or are there more? Can you sort out which specific ships favored which alternative spelling? I suppose we go with the most commonly used spelling? I can move it back to the other spelling if there is a consensus to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Parsecboy's pic proves that the WWI ship was Pentstemon , it's not the only case of the RN wrongly spelling an original name and sticking with it. Once a name is chosen it can be expected that the RN will continue with that spelling for later ships, in addition to the sources I gave above for the WW2 ship I have now checked Janes for 1944 and Youngs Dictionary of Ships of the Royal Navy of the Second World War - both agree that it was Pentstemon. I therefore ask that the SI page be restored to as it was when I created it. Lyndaship (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the RN, "Pentstemon" isn't wrong, it's just a less common variant of the word. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I moved it back. wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable crew

I know this has come up before, people adding non-notable crew names to ship articles (sometimes whole lists of them), most commonly seen with edits such as "CDR Smith has assumed command of USS Foo as of 1 May 2017", or "Seaman 2nd Class Bob Jones received a non-judicial reprimand for being drunk on duty and barfing on a comm panel". Unless we already have some kind of written guideance for this, could we perhaps add something, somewhere? (MOS? Project guidance?) Maybe a helpful shortcut like "SHIPSNOTCREWS", since that is what the ship articles are supposed to be about. Just a thought... - wolf 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need any change to policy or MOS for this. Obviously including the barf incident would be undue. But we can't just prohibit mention of non-notable crew, because they are sometimes involved in notable incidents. When someone tries to add something like your CDR Smith example, I point them to WP:NOTNEWS. But I can imagine cases where we might want to name CDR Smith even if he isn't notable by himself; maybe if he put the ship into commission, or commanded during a notable war patrol (or, these days, a collision). Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but I didnt say anything about "notable incidents". I'm was just referring to things such as; updating the name of the CO (or MCPO/CoB) for a destroyer or sub. This is usually a CDR's billet and the officer is almost always non-notable. Or adding a minor but noted incident that occurred to one or more ship's crew offship, and that has nothing to do with the ship. And while NOTNEWS or just WP:NOT covers the examples I gave, I just thought it would be helpful to have some guidance (and if we do, I've missed it so please let me know) that steers the content of ship article towards the ship and away from non-notable crew. The examples I've cited don't/can't cover every contingency, it just seems that every now and then I come across an edit where someone has added some sailor's name to a ship article that doesn't need to be there, and it would be nice to have an edit summary short-cut to a reason why we don't need non-notable crew added to these pages. It's just suggestion. - wolf 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse proposers view. Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that articles on ships should focus on the vessel, but worth noting that the history and conduct of the crew is sometimes a meaningful part of the history of the vessel as a whole. This is particularly the case in some early modern navies where (for example) the fame, social connections and longevity of individual captains was instrumental in determining if the vessel could muster enough people to serve aboard, be included in major fleets and/or be given licence to cruise for enemies versus being assigned to convoys. The captains in question aren't usually notable enough for their own articles, but are often notable in the context of the ship's career. Just something to bear in mind if we draft new guidelines that broadly seeks to remove their names. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, anything notable about the ship, including any otherwise non-notable crew involvement in that notable occurence, should be included. I'm not looking to prohibit any notable content related to the ship. I was just looking for something a little more direct and on point than NOTNEWS to deal with the constant, random additions of non-notable crew, (such as junior officers taking command of a non-capital ship, etc.). Something similar to WP:SHE4SHIPS at WP:NCS, but perhaps in WP:SHIPMOS, that speaks to the preference for ship article content to be about the ship and not non-notable crew. - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical perspective is one thing, but listing active-duty run-of-the-mill officers in the ship articles does not serve any purpose unless these people have been involved in a "notable incident" or are notable enough on their own for a separate article. Tupsumato (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last November, we had a discussion about the "List(s) of Commanding Officers" that were popping up on various naval ship articles. The consensus was to remove these lists, as the preference was to have notable COs (if there were any) added to the article prose with a link to their BLP. Some of these lists did not have any notable officers, some were added to newer ships, such as Burke-class destroyers where the few COs a ship had, were CDRs and not at all likely to have any notability. Some pages even had lists of NCOs, such as COBs. There was some discussion about making changes to SHIPMOS to reflect this consensus, but the discussion was archived before any specific changes could be proposed. As this is basically related to the topic of this section, I thought I raise the issue again. If we are to make changes/additions to SHIPMOS about non-notable crew and/or these CO lists, perhaps now would be a good time to for proposals.

  • Proposal #1: Articles about ships should focus on the ship, not her crew. Non-notable crew members, including commanding officers, should not be added to a ship article, unless they are part of a notable, reliably sourced event that involves the ship, or played an integral role in the notable history of a ship. An exception would be commanding officers that are notable per WP:MILPERSON, in which case they should be included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their BLP page. This would address non-notable crew in general. The above suggested shortcut "SHIPSNOTCREWS" or something similar would apply here.
  • Proposal #2: Articles about ships should focus on the ship. While a ship may have many commanding officers during her active lifespan, only those notable per WP:MILPERSON should be noted in the article. This would preclude creating sub-sections with lists of commanding officers, as the preference is to have notable commanding officers included in the article's prose, typically where chronologically appropriate in the ship's history, with a link to their BLP page. This would address the specific issue of lists of commanding officers. Perhaps a shortcut such as "PROSENOTLISTS" would work here.

These proposals are not mutually exclusive. As proposer, I would obviously support both. But I'm sure other editors here could have other, even better ideas, and I would like to see more proposals. The idea is just to have some guidance to help make maintaining these articles a little easier. (This is also where the shortcuts come in; if you're going to revert someone's edits, a shortcut in the edit summary is helpful). Thanks - wolf 04:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have posted a request here to move the "People's Liberation Army Navy" page to "Chinese Navy". - wolf 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avante 2200

The Royal Saudi Navy has ordered 5 Avante 2200 corvettes: [3], but there doesn't seem to be a page for the Avante 2200 class other than the Guaiquerí-class patrol boat page. Should a new page be created or the Guaiquerí-class patrol boat page modified? Mztourist (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Saudi vessels will likely become a different class despite sharing the type design, perhaps an article about "Avante 2200" could be created in the same way as e.g. MEKO 200. Tupsumato (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted thanks, should it be created now or wait until the Saudi project is more advanced? Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If the Saudi project has been confirmed, the information should be included in the Avante 2000 article before splitting it off to its own article. Tupsumato (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Hayward

Not the Water Witch 1832 RMG PU6156 cropped detail

Came across the article Captain Hayward about the first ferry crossing of the English Channel, although it appears to be about on event related to the connection with the South Eastern Railway service from London. It clearly is not about the good Captain or even his ship the Water Witch and makes some claims about being the first round trip from London but it certainly doesnt appear to be the first ferry crossing. I added the name of the ship which was missing and was tempted to move the article to William Hayward to give the Captain his real name but thought I would seek opinions here of where what appears to an event article rather than a person or ship should go. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is about an event - the inaugural round trip in June 1843 by the South Eastern Railway from London to Boulogne, using the steamer Water Witch of Dover, owned and captained by Hayward (trial trip by directors, the SER engineer and guests on 24th; inaugural service on 28th with 100 passengers). There is no biographical information on Hayward, nor information on the ship. I don't think that the event is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but would make a reasonable paragraph in South Eastern Railway, with a mention in Folkestone Harbour. It is likely that Water Witch (steamer) could be written, which would of course include reference to this event (I'll give it a try in the coming days). Davidships (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidships: - Water Witch is almost certainly a paddle steamer, one of several with that name. Therefore "PS Water Witch (18xx)" would be the title that fits NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain this is the vessel. "PS Water Witch (1832)" according to RMG. Broichmore (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies for slow reply - delayed by a close encounter with a large MAN truck - no blood).
@Broichmore: If the stated publication date of 1 Jun 1834 is correct this cannot be Hayward's Water Witch, which was built over a year later. Not sure at the moment which Water Witch this is, though I note that she apparently flies an Admiralty ensign [4].
(later) and after puzzling about which Water Witch this could possibly be, wonder whether it is in fact referring to the steamer. Compare this engraving which is specifically stated to be of the trials of the Royal Yacht Squadron brig of that name, built for the Earl of Belfast by Joseph White, Cowes in 1832.[5] OR of course.
@Mjroots: We'll see later about that, depending on sources, NC-S optionality, dab requirements etc. Davidships (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • commons:Category:Water Witch (ship, 1832) RMG says 1832. Engraving issued 1834. These pictures are of the steamer Water Witch, one shown on this page. Could it have been hired for the trial? Coincidentally a steamer White Witch (1833) of the St George and Waterford Steam Packet Company sank in her first year off Ireland. [Billed as possibly the fastest sailing vessel ever floated].
There is nothing in the source (RMG) that says the title refers to the steamer on the right. Who says "These pictures are of the steamer Water Witch"? Since the image is very similar to those specifically showing the Lord Belfast's brig-yacht Water Witch, which was built in 1832 (keel laid Oct 1831, launched 23 Jun 1832), in centre frame Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too many separate references point at it being the Snake. Does the Serpent actually exist as a separate entity? - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why there is a Commons category for "(ship, 1830)", when all five images show Lord Belfast's 331t ship built in 1832, defeats me. "1830" is not given in relation to Water Witch, or indeed any other vessel, in the RMG sources linked from the images. So where does it come from?
Your correct. Page 109 and the illustration that goes with it. Confirms it. The 1830 date came from incorrect sources and prior confusions.
I could not find the reference to "Lord Belfast's Water Witch 1830 73 tons" in the "Sporting Magazine" book you linked above. Which page is it on? That book's reference to a Water Witch of 8 tons owned by Mr J Unwin and racing on the River Thames above London is hardly relevant.Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link was to page 379. It references the Earl of Belfast and the Commodore of the NY, J. E. Matthews, and says the latter hoists (present tense) his flag on the Water Witch. Its a red herring as it's a 73 ton, 3 masted schooner. This volume of the Sporting Magazine covers Belfast and 5 different Water Witches, of 8, 17 1/2, 33, 73, and 331 tonnages. - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not clear why there is a separate Commons category "ship (1834)" since all but one of the images are of the 1832 vessel (one is stated by RMG to be the brig Osprey, built 1844).Davidships (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right again. All told we have 13 images of the same brig, all with different dates. The Osprey image had White Witch scrawled on it's back, indicating that it may have a minor role in the scene. I'll move the images into 1834, and start an article. That leaves the question of the paddle steamer flying the Admirals flag. The Admiral must be Sir Pulteney Malcolm his flagship for the trials HMS Donegal (1798)?, so he must have reviewed the proceedings on the steamer? Name? - Broichmore (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal: ENI number

See d:Wikidata:Property proposal/ENI number. -- Reise Reise (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Soldado

Was this ship really called this? It's not listed in Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8. and every other source other than a Dictionary of naval Biography refers to it as Saudadoes. Possibly it's a contemporary English misspelling for a difficult foreign word. I've raised it on the creators talk page but he's not replied [6]. Lyndaship (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any delay, have been involved with other things -and yes I should have edited properly. I'm a little 'rusty'. I have no direct source as you requested -just a series of 'likely' historical co-incidents, as per entries. Long Ben Every (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's English sloop Saudadoes (1669). Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have not found any source for official renaming of Saudadoes to Soldado, and as Lyndaship suggests it is likely to be a misspelling - there are occasional examples of Soldadoes also in correspondence. We cetainly do not need two articles on the same ship, but as the name does occur, I suggest that HMS Soldado is converted to a redirect to HMY Saudadoes. The paragraph about a piratical Soldado seems irrelevant to this article since Saudadoes was still in commission in 1693. There was, though, HMS Saudadoes Prize (sometimes wrongly Saudadoe's Prize), the captured French privateer La Victoire, with the RN 1692-1712, which should have it's own article. Davidships (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post the same as Davidships just did. Agree totally (unsurprisingly) redirect to HMY Saudadoes, separate article for Saudadoes Prize Lyndaship (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant AfD discussion

A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant AfD discussion

There is a discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Pegasus (1944) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Pegasus (1944). All interested editors are invited to comment. Lyndaship (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=860948842"