Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
	Assessments: Class assessment needed • Log; Categorize and tag: New article feed; Cleanup listing: Articles tagged for cleanup alphabetically or by category at Labs; Expand stubs: Stub-class ship articles; Images: Requested ship photos • Infoboxes without an image; Infoboxes: Infobox needed • Infobox conversion needed; Recent changes: US changes • UK changes • cruiseship changes;
Information and sources
	Article alerts: Updated daily; Guidelines Manual of Style Infobox ship: Usage guide Naming Conventions (articles) Categorization Project Scope; Past AfDs; Popular Pages: Most popular ship articles; Tools and Templates Ensigns {{Navy}} {{USN flag}}; Outreach; Resources; Participants Barnstars; Project subpages;
Article statistics
WP 1.0 bot	39562

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ships and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 76, 77: 21 days

WikiProject Ships was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 June 2010.

Rate of sailing warships

I have just created[1] a link to Third-rate in an article that is not particularly nautical, so where the term does need some explanation. Looking at the linked article (third-rate) and also First-rate and Second-rate, they are of variable quality and do not really do justice to the normal output of this Wikiproject. (For instance, third-rate is tagged for lack of inline citations.) I note that we have the omnibus article Rating system of the Royal Navy, but, though good, this could do with some improvement.

My current reading is focussed on the Restoration Navy, where we find that first and second-rates of that time were at sea only in the summer months, making the third-rate of greater importance. This era differs from later times with, for example: "All of these ships [first and second-rates] would have been regarded as horrifyingly overgunned by eighteenth-century standards; but their seventeenth-century owners were careful to employ them only in home waters in summer, and they put their tremendous firepower to good use in many battles." (Davies, J. D.. Pepys's Navy: Ships, Men & Warfare, 1649–1689 (p. 131).)

Since I feel very much a novice at understanding the Navy's rating system, I thought I would raise here to see if anyone is interested in improving some of these articles. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yacht transport

The article Yacht transport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 5 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Extremely poor sourcing and spam.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the deletion discussion, but it looks like we could use an article for semi-submersible ship. Gatoclass (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the type does get a mention in Heavy-lift ship, so maybe just a redirect? Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made it a redirect for now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for German submarine U-853

German submarine U-853 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colledge Ships of the Royal Navy, 2020

I have made a citation template for the 5th edition at Template:Cite Colledge2020 and Template:Cite Colledge2020/doc, based on the 2010 edition. Hopefully it's turned out right - is there more that I should do (or learn)? - Davidships (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a purpose for |year= or |date= support; the template is supposed to be for the 2020 edition so other dates only cause confusion. |year= is included in the exclusion list but at the same time the {{cite book}} |date= parameter can get its value from the {{Cite Colledge2020}} |year= parameter: | date = {{{date|{{{year|2020}}}}}}. Why? |date= should also be excluded and the {{cite book}} |date= parameter should be reduced to this: | date = 2020.

Also, what is the purpose of |case=? In the {{Cite Colledge2020}} |title= parameter is this:

{{#if:{{{case|}}}|The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy from the 15th Century to the Present|The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy from the 15th Century to the Present}}

Both return values appear to be the same so the {{#if:{{{case|}}}|...|...}} test seems pointless. This puzzlement also applies to {{Cite Colledge2006}} (since this edit) and {{Cite Colledge2010}} (from its creation). Because |case= has done nothing in these templates since 2011 and does not appear to be used (2006 search, 2010 search) it seems to me that |case= in all three templates should go away.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SS Delphic (1925)

What is the naming convention for articles about ships that have been renamed? SS Delphic (1925) refers to the year when she was renamed, rather than the year when she was launched. Is this normal, or should it be "SS Delphic (1918)"? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the naming conventions here - that title is correct. What it boils down to is, the ship wasn't named Delphic in 1918, so we wouldn't want to use that year. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy (talk · contribs) is not correct. We conventionally dab by year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The naming conventions I linked states:

In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy or shipping company, or simply renamed, and the article is placed at that title, use the date that is in agreement with the name and prefix (such as the date of capture or entry to the navy or fleet, or the date of the renaming) rather than the date of launch.

Standard practice is to dab ships by year of capture/purchase if the article is titled under the new name. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for naval vessels. Not for commercial vessels. Delphic was never a naval vessel. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It might be the convention for captured naval vessels, but IMO it would be problematic for commercial vessels. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to amend the conventions, given that the page currently reads where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a...shipping company. There's nothing on the page to suggest that applies only to naval vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision#Requested move 4 July 2025

An editor has requested that Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision be moved to Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge crash, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:USNS Harvey Milk#Requested move 15 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:USNS Harvey Milk#Requested move 15 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ivey (talk - contribs) 01:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NVR stuff

I've been futzing with Module:Naval Vessel Register URL, Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/data, Module:Naval Vessel Register URL/data extraction tool and the templates that use these modules: {{Naval Vessel Register URL}} and {{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL}}. I did this because the Navy, in their infinite wisdom elected to revamp the NVR website without providing redirects from old urls to the new urls; that broke all of these templates and any links from the old urls not backed up by an archive url. The 1200-ish articles that use these templates should all be working now.

As part of my futzing, I have removed the need for us to have two templates so I have started switching instances of {{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL}} to {{Naval Vessel Register URL}}. In doing that, I (re)discovered Los Alamos (AFDB-7) where there is this mess:

*{{Naval Vessel Register|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7a}} |{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7f}}}}—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
*{{Naval Vessel Register|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=YFP14}}}}—YFP-14

This article includes information collected from the Naval Vessel Register, which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain. The entries can be found here and here.—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
This article includes information collected from the Naval Vessel Register, which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain. The entry can be found here.—YFP-14

That mess reminded me of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 77 § Template:DANFS.

{{Naval Vessel Register}} is an attribution template so I looked in Category:United States government attribution templates where I found these US military attribution templates:

{{Air Force Historical Research Agency}}
{{Army Center of Military History}}
{{Army Institute of Heraldry}}
{{Marine Corps}}
{{NHHC}}
{{USCG}}
{{USNAVY}}

These templates all seem to have common wording that isn't as awkward as the wording used by {{Naval Vessel Register}}:

This article incorporates public domain material from ...

So I've been thinking about reworking {{Naval Vessel Register}} so that it can fetch an NVR link directly from {{Naval Vessel Register URL}}. In the most common case, where {{Naval Vessel Register}} refers to a single NVR page, we might write:

{{Naval Vessel Register|SSBN-659}}

which might render as:

This article incorporates public domain material from Will Rogers (SSBN-659) at Naval Vessel Register.

For the more complex version mentioned above, we might write:

{{Naval Vessel Register
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}

which might render as:

This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G, section F, and YFP-14 at Naval Vessel Register.

Questions? Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the DANFS discussion - what about archive links? Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doable, I suppose. We could support an |archive= parameter that would take a url:

{{Naval Vessel Register
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|archive1=https://web.archive.org/web/20250719151228/https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=5372
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}

which might render as:

This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G (Archive), section F, and YFP-14 at Naval Vessel Register.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sandboxed at {{NVR/sandbox}}:

{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox}}

This article incorporates public domain material from the Naval Vessel Register.

{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|hull=ssbn659}}

This article incorporates public domain material from Will Rogers (SSBN-659) at the Naval Vessel Register.

{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|hull1=ytb-779 |hull2=yt800}}

This article incorporates public domain material from Manhattan (YTB-779) and No Name (YT-800) at the Naval Vessel Register.

{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox
|hull=AFDB7a
|title=''Los Alamos'' (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G
|archive1=https://web.archive.org/web/20250719151228/https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=5372
|hull2=AFDB7f
|title2=section F
|hull3=YFP-14
|title3=''YFP-14''
}}

This article incorporates public domain material from Los Alamos (AFDB-7) – sections A–E & G (Archived), section F, and YFP-14 at the Naval Vessel Register.

Because there are 900+ articles that use {{Naval Vessel Register}}, the sandbox also supports the old format using the new phrasing, and one or two positional parameters for url ext links to specific pages in the NVR:

*{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7a}} |{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=AFDB7f}}}}—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
*{{Naval Vessel Register/sandbox|{{Naval Vessel Register service craft URL|id=YFP14}}}}—YFP-14

This article incorporates public domain material from here and here at the Naval Vessel Register.—AFDB-7 Sections A–E & G, AFDB7 Section F
This article incorporates public domain material from here at the Naval Vessel Register.—YFP-14

Yeah, these are somewhat awkward, but the templates using positional parameters will eventually be replaced with templates using named parameters, after which positional parameters will be rejected and an error message emitted.

Suggestions? Discard? Keep?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query at RDM

An editor is asking for the current port of registry of Point Nemo at WP:RDM. The information is available, but behind a paywall. If any editor can answer the question, please respond at RDM. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of ferry articles

I see very common use of initials such as MV, MS, DEV, SS in the names of articles about ferries. Historically these were commonly used but is this consistently applied for modern operating vessels? I see from Ship prefix that it's probably outdated. I'm keen on tidying up naming of NZ ferry articles DEV Aratere, MS Kaiarahi, MV Kaitaki, MS Strait Feronia, MV Connemara, MV Livia and MS Kaiarahi. Was going to suggest the articles get named <ferry operator> <name of vessel>. (Cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport#Naming of ferry articles) Quilt Phase (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]