Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Ship Index pages - another try

Back in 2015 there was a useful discussion about the titles of Ship Index pages for merchant ships. There was general consensus that there should be a common approach, with a majority favouring a format "name of ship (something with 'ship' in it)". There was no support at all for including ship-type prefixes in these pages. Despite that, the question was pertinently asked: "Is this conversation going to result in a decision or just dwindle away until it is archived?". I am not at all conversant with the procedure for getting from a discussion to a decision to implementation, but perhaps I should have done more at the time - I was expecting that more experienced hands would move it forward. In the meantime, new ship index pages continue to be created in a variety of formats, including with ship-type prefixes, like SS Helsingfors, ignoring the existence of ships with the name Helsingfors that are not steamships. Davidships (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what I've done wrong here, Davidships. Do you have evidence of other ships named Helsingfors? Were they motor vessels, sailing ships, military ships? I know that it was mentioned in the AfD that there was a 1950 ship with the name, and have asked the editor who raised it for assistance. Maybe Helsingfors (disambiguation) would be more to your liking. No objection to redirecting SS Helsingfors to that title and expanding as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, at least four steamships and two motorships, two barques, two full-rigged - surprisingly no warships found. What does it matter what kind of ships they are? "Ship index" pages are a tool to get to the right article (or discover that it doesn't exist), so the simplest approach is the most useful: one name, one index (unless consequent length requires a fork)

No, discussion on ship index articles back in 2006 made it clear that they are emphatically not DAB pages, and all the previous DAB templates were removed and replaced with the "shipindex" template. There were plenty of good/acceptable suggestions made in the 2015 discussion. Davidships (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the disambiguation title. Ships and other uses need populating. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it back pending additions that necessitate further disambiguation. 1) there was only one valid dab entry on the page; the only other entry was a redlink with a reference -- which is not permitted on a dab page, but is allowed on a set index; 2) both of the entries are titled as "SS Helsingfors", not "Helsingfors". older ≠ wiser 16:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

One method of naming is "List of ships named Foo", such as List of ships named Yamato, List of ships named Lusitania, etc. We also have indices with the format "Foo (ship index)" like Camden (ship index), Martha (Ship index), etc. Either would be an acceptable solution. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue "Foo (ship index)" is probably the best way to go about this, given "List of ships named Foo" opens cans of worms about 'what is a suitable list'; list debates I've seen elsewhere have not been pretty... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger - to me Foo (ship index) is indeed the clearest and most succint naming model - it says exactly what is in the tin. It appeared to be the preference of Trappist the monk last time round. It seems less likely to run up against other broader considerations that would come from using the word "list". I firmly believe that searchers are best served by entering the name of the ship they are looking for, with no wordy preamble or pre-nominal abbreviations.

But after last time's disappointment, how do we make it happen? Presumably first by amending the Wikipedia:SHIPMOS. I have no idea of the processes for stuff like that. Davidships (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we make it happen, Davidships? We can put forward a firm proposal here, gain consensus for it, and then put it into action. WP:NC-S can be suitably amended once consensus has been gained. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

All ship index pages shall be titled "Foo (ship index)". Thus Foo (barque), Foo (brig), SS Foo, MV Foo, HMS Foo, USS Foo, French ship Foo etc would shall all be listed on "Foo (ship index)". Redirects from these titles would be created. This to be codified in NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I'm not sure about the word "shipindex". At least add the space between the words. Tupsumato (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Y - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I've used "List of ships named Foo" for indices I've created in the past, mostly because that's what I came across first, but I'm not too fussed about it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

support: with these comments and questions:

1. shouldn't the first two sentences of the proposal read:

   All shipindex pages shall be titled "Foo (ship index)". Thus Foo (barque), Foo (brig), SS Foo, MV Foo, HMS Foo, USS Foo, French ship Foo etc shall all be listed on "Foo (ship index)".

   because Foo is a ship name and the index lists ships by that name;

   because 'shall' is assertive in the first sentence, it makes 'would' feel weak by comparison in the second sentence

2. in 'All shipindex pages ...' does 'shipindex' have a specific meaning or is that form merely a typo?
3. what does the third sentence really mean?:

   Redirects from these titles would be created.

   does it apply to the article names listed in the first sentence?

   does it mean that all other ship index article titles shall redirect to their Name (ship index) equivalent?

4. what about Almirante Lynch-class destroyer and similar article titles?

   does this one become Almirante Lynch-class destroyer (ship index)?

   does it, instead, loose its 'ship index' status and become a dab page?

Some time spent wandering around in Category:set indices on ships may be informative. There are 5475 ship index articles at this writing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Shipindex" has been changed to "ship index", "would" struck through and replaced with "shall". Is there an issue with ship class disambiguation? I don't see that there is due to a much smaller duplication of names. You might just find three different ship classes with the same name, but I think these would be very much in the minority. The current HMS Foo ship index page would be redirected to Foo (ship index), and the information housed in a section of that page. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Foo (ship index) is good. Presume that the new text in WP:NCS will follow current section 3 and headed "Naming ship index pages" or a separate section further down "Ship index pages". And then WP:MOS will need to be made consistent.

I wonder whether a Class list is truly a ship index pages - more like a DAB really. There is already an index for Chilean ship Almirante Lynch. I'm agnostic on this really.

Nearly all of Category:set indices on ships follow a pattern. There will be some awkward ones (eg same name used twice, some with trailing dabs, and the class ones) but the vast majority probably have DEFAULTSORT templates, so maybe a bot can be devised to convert (now I am getting out of my depth again). Davidships (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, taking Albatross (ship index), it would include all ships currently listed at RV Albatross, HMAS Albatross, HMS Albatross and USS Albatross, plus any vessels with the alternative spelling Albatros, such as Albatros (1899). Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget SMS Albatross ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but you get the idea. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

An albatross about your index page! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that "multiple ship classes dab" pages are a different beast that would be left as-is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. In general I've no concerns with the proposal. I think the third sentence could be clearer on the topic of whether already existing subsidiary ship index pages should be converted into redirects. And I've left notices at WT:DAB#Ship index naming convention and WT:WPDAB#Ship index naming convention. older ≠ wiser 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarify: does this propose setting up "base name" as a redirect to "base name (ship index)" in some cases? If so, then it runs counter to WP:PRECISION and these list articles should probably continue with the list article and general set index naming convention "List of Xes named Y". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION does list some classes of exception, e.g. Sometown as a redirect to Sometown, Somestate for U.S. places. Although not listed explicitly in WP:PRECISION, ship names already seem to be an exception, e.g. Almirante Lynch redirects to the ship index Chilean ship Almirante Lynch. Certes (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, natural extensions of the name that might make it more unique. That would be comparable to the "List of Xes named Y" format. Not for redirecting "base name" to "base name (parenthetical qual'fier where none is needed)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I picked a poor example from the list at WP:PRECISION. Leeds North West or M-185 would be more relevant. Certes (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OTOH, those are examples of WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes that shouldn't exist either. There's no reason to introduce another WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here when the usual set index and list naming conventions (and following WP:PRECISION) are perfectly workable with "List of ships named Foo". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You may well be right. That's why I'm asking below why ships are special, i.e. in what way do the principles that work for everything else fail for ships. Certes (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: it needs to be stressed somewhere that there must always be a way to get from "Foo" to "Foo (ship index)", whether or not "Foo" has any other meanings: if there is a single non-ship article "Foo" then a hatnote needs to be added; if "Foo" is a dab page or "Foo (disambiguation)" exists, then an entry for the ship index is needed there (would it be a "See also"? A non-ship-expert would probably expect just to find a "Ships" section within the dab page). If there is no non-ship article "Foo" then ... see above, not sure what would be the solution. But for accessibility of ship articles to those who don't know the system, there must always be a pathway to the Foo ship index from plain "Foo". PamD 23:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There should be a pathway from Foo to each ship named Foo (perhaps via a ship index) but we don't always have one currently. For example, I don't see a way from Albatross to RV Albatross III, as RV Albatross (a ship index) isn't listed on Albatross (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That example by Certes is a good one. The way I see this working is that any ship named Albatros(s) will have a hatnote pointing to the ship index page, as will dab pages such as Albatross (disambiguation). Thus more ships will be cross-linked via two links. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY, because ships are not magically special. And per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:NATURAL, and WP:ATDAB: "(ship index)" isn't a disambiguation – no notable thing named Foo (or whatever) is, in the real world, a "ship index". Just follow WP:SAL and WP:SIA and WP:NCLIST, as with any other topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...the fact that those are not working for ships is the entire point of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
    • But they are workable for ships, just not followed consistently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of editors unfamiliar with ship articles, Foo (ship) means a full-rigged ship named Foo, as opposed to Foo (barque), Foo (brig), Foo (snow) etc. For that reason, we can't use that title for a ship index page. Mjroots (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have always disliked this limitation to ship disambiguation in Wikipedia. Sure, it may be according to some archiaic classification of sailing vessels, but it imposes quite a strict limit for those few hundred thousand other ships and forces us to use unnecessarily detailed disambiguators. How about using "Foo (full-rigged ship)" for full-rigged ships (which is a specific type of sailing vessel) and "Foo (ship)" as the "top-level disambiguator"... Tupsumato (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Can't use which title? "Foo (ship index)", "List of ships named Foo", or _____? If "ship" only means "full-rigged ship", why is the project WP:WikiProject Ships and the template {{ship index}}? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: can't use Foo (ship) as a shipindex page. If you come across "the Ship Foo..." in contemporary newspaper accounts, then "Ship" means that the vessel was a full-rigged ship, in the context of sailing vessels. @Tupsumato: I'm not in favour of using "full-rigged ship" as a disambiguator where ship serves the purpose perfectly well. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. "List of ships named Foo" is still workable (and consistent, recognizable, natural, and the usual set index naming convention)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "List of ships named Foo" if that's what's needed to make this work, but I still foresee that being a can of worms with the List Sticklers at some point... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"ship" may serve its purpose well as a disambiguator for full-rigged ships, but it also reserves that word for that diminishing number of sailing vessels. In the meantime, thousands of ships are being built every year. Some of those could benefit from a top-level disambiguator which does not go into specifics (e.g. "ship" doesn't care whether the ship is a general cargo ship, dry cargo ship, bulk carrier, ore carrier or some even more specific breed of vessel...). Tupsumato (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We're also internally inconsistent. From their first lines, RV Albatross III was a fisheries research ship and (from SS America (1939)) For other ships named for America, see SS America. No one is going to misconstrue that those articles are about full-rigged sailing ships. I think general usage, for the lay reader and even within military and merchant navies, is that "ship" has a much broader sense including powered vessels. Certes (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the articles are ship indexes and should use the set index naming conventions -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Ok, then it would appear that Foo (ship index) does use the set index naming conventions:

  Quoting from the lead of WP:SETINDEX which says, in part:

  The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

  Quoting from WP:Stand-alone lists#Titles:

  Set index articles do not need to be titled with list of unless there is also a disambiguation page using that title. For example, Dodge Charger is a list of cars named Dodge Charger, but does not need to be titled List of cars named Dodge Charger. However, since Signal Mountain is a disambiguation page, the related set index article is at List of peaks named Signal Mountain.

  Further, WP:Stand-alone lists#Titles does not require List of ... titles for any list article; instead noting that the "common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___" and then spending a lot of words describing how to best construct such a title.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Everything you just posted indicates that "Foo (ship index)" does not use the set index naming conventions. "Foo" follows the naming conventions, and "List of ships named Foo" follows the convention. Set index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Show where the community have determined that [set] index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  You quoted the naming patterns covered by the community: "Foo" and "Lists of ships named Foo". Show where the community has determined that set indexes use parenthetical qualifiers in contrast to the quotations you've already given showing that they don't. (And why are you using the talk quotation when you're not quoting someone?) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  From Template:Talk quote#Usage:

  1. It is used on talk pages (and Wikipedia process pages, e.g. noticeboards) to highlight quoted material (of other editors' comments or from an article or source).

  Everywhere that I have used {{tq}} in this subsection of the discussion, I have been quoting someone; I have been quoting you.

  You declared that [set] index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers. You now appear to claim that WP:SETINDEX and/or WP:STANDALONE supports your declaration. I cannot find, in either of those, anything that so clearly prohibits set index titles from using parenthetical qualifiers. So, again, show where the community have determined that [set] index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  You quoted the set index guidance: using the base name "Foo" and using the list naming pattern "List of Xes named Y". Again, show where the community had determined any other option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Here's more: WP:SIA "The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." And see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles for those guidelines (which do not include parenthetical qualifiers). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  And evidence that set indexes don't use "set index" as a parenthetical qualifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A"set+index" There are some redirects, but the articles are titled "List of Xes named Y" or other titles without parenthetical qualifiers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yep, I quoted those same sources. Yep, WP:SIA does say that the style guidelines at WP:STANDALONE apply. Yep, WP:STANDALONE does not mention parenthetical qualifiers, nor does it explicitly require titles in a certain form, though there is an inference that "List of ..." should be used when a disambiguation page exists. You, however, have strongly asserted the there is (somewhere) a prohibition against set index pages with parenthetical qualifiers in their titles and have so far not shown us where the community have made the determination to prohibit parenthetical qualifiers in set index page titles.

  I think that the intended link is:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A%22set+index%22

  This evidence that you have provided is rather less than persuasive. Of the nine pages returned by what I think to be your search link, seven of those are redirects that use parenthetical qualifiers. Of those seven redirects, five of them were created by you (4) and another editor when these five titles were moved to their current "list of ..." titles; the sixth was initially created as a redirect by a third editor, and the last was created as a set index and then merged into its parent article.

  Show where the community have determined that [set] index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  No, that's not how this works. I have shown where it's not used. Show where the community has determined that set index articles use them. Your complete absence of evidence is completely unpersuasive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Which is to say, the fact that no indices currently use parenthetical disambiguators is not evidence that they shouldn't use them. What Trappist is asking for is a discussion somewhere that the community decided that parentheticals are prohibited for index titles. In the absence of such a discussion, your position is entirely baseless. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Further, I'd direct your attention to the most recent edit to WP:SETINDEX, and the category linked in that diff. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  So, on the one hand, we have actual guidelines on how to name these things, with no mention of parentheticals. On the other hand, we have wikilawyering (the actual baseless part of this argument). Got it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Or, we have guidelines you have chosen to interpret the way you have, and clear precedent that you are wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC) For the record, I don't much care one way or the other, and, if it came down to it, actually prefer the "List of Xes named Y" formula (and have used it in some of the indices I've created in the past). But that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing on the basis of your personal preference and little else.

  As long as you're lumping "the list naming conventions" and "set index style guidelines" into "Little else", sure. My "interpretation" is a direct reading of them. Claiming that "oh, sure we could use the guidelines the way they explicitly state things, but show me where they explicitly prohibit my personal preference of using a parenthetical" is an argument based only on personal preference. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  What you continue to fail (or refuse?) to grasp is that a guideline that states "X is acceptable" is not the same as "Y is prohibited" or even "only X is acceptable". Again, you have your interpretation of the guideline, and that's about it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  What you refuse to acknowledge is that any actual reading of the guidelines is a better foundation than nothing. Your statement above "well, sure, the guidelines say X, but they don't say not Y, so X and Y are equivalent" is wikilawyering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  No, it's basic logic. Your assertion is not supported by the guideline you cite, in that nowhere does it prohibit the thing you say it prohibits. It's really as simple as that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  In your oppose you introduced the naming conventions into this discussion: the articles are ship indexes and should use the set index naming conventions. We have both quoted from those conventions. If one of us is guilty of 'wikilawyering', then so too, is the other. But, I shall not be distracted. The failure of the guidelines to mention parenthetical qualifiers does not equate to their prohibition.

  I grow weary of this unproductive discussion. I think that I shall be done unless you or someone else returns with actual evidence of a community decision that unequivocally supports your assertion that [set] index articles do not use parenthetical qualifiers.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SIA and JHunterJ's comments above. Foo (ship index) works, but Foo (where unambiguous) or List of ships named Foo (where Foo may mean a non-ship) work at least as well and are consistent with set indices on other topics. Logically, Foo (ship index) should be about a publication like Jane's Fighting Ships. WP:SIA doesn't explicity ban parenthetical disambiguation or any other alternative, but it does recommend a system without parentheses that seems to work in similar cases. Certes (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal II

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

---

All ship index articles shall be in the form of "List of ships named Foo". This to be codified in NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Tupsumato, The Bushranger, Parsecboy, Trappist the monk, Davidships, Bkonrad, JHunterJ, Certes, PamD who all commented on the original proposal. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support, original proposal 1st choice. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• FWIW, if "Foo" is unambiguous except for ships, I'd prefer the set index be titled in accordance with set indexes and lists (since it is), but it could also be titled just "Foo". If there are other Wikipedia topics other than the ships, though, and the list of ships isn't the primary topic for "Foo", then yes, those ship index articles should be titled "List of ships named Foo". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. We don't need to identify e.g. a list of ships named Costa Concordia (if were more than one) as a "ship index" in the article name unless there's something else named "Costa Concordia" (that has an article in Wikipedia). Tupsumato (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak, cautious support. I still prefer the "Foo (ship index)" titling, in the same sense that "Foo (disambiguation)" is used for dab pages, because "What is a list?" is a question that tends to result in worms scattered everywhere, but if it's that or nothing I can live with it as I dig out my old CompuServ-issue asbestos suit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. To me Proposal (I) with "Foo (ship index)" is far preferable and focuses on the unique thing that people are looking for, they know there is a ship named Foo, about which they may know nothing else - that is what they will put in the search box, not "List of..." or "Index of...". It's the same principle that gives us Queen Victoria (disambiguation) rather than something beginning with "List of ..." or "Index of ...". Weak only because, like Bushranger, if that is all that is on offer I could swallow hard and live with it; anything else is likely to be even worse. Davidships (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• oppose: to me, titles in the form 'List of whatever...' marks the associated article as something more than a simple navigation tool – after all, all of the WP:SHIPS FLs are named 'List of ...'—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, "List of whatever" marks the associated article as more than a navigation tool. But that's what set indexes are for. If they were just simple navigation tools, they would be disambiguation pages (and follow the disambiguation page guidelines). Ship index articles are not simple navigation tools. They list ships that are not otherwise covered in Wikipedia. They provide more information about each ship than is required for simple navigation. They are list articles, and in particular they are lists of ships named "Foo". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yep, a bit more than a navigation tool, but navigation is clearly anticipated and intended purpose:

  Quoting from WP:SETINDEX#Set_indexes_and_disambiguation (enphasis in original):

  A set index article is not a disambiguation page: A disambiguation page is a list of things, possibly of different types, that share the same (or similar) name, formatted for best navigating the reader to the sought topic. A set index lists things of only one type and is meant to provide information as well as navigation.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  In as much as navigation is the point of any list article, yes. The whole point of making them not disambiguation pages was because they offer encyclopedic content in addition to links to other topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  There is a distinction, I think. It would seem that for a set index article, navigation is more important than encyclopedic content and, conversely, encyclopedic content is more important that navigation for a list article. Set indexes live in that space between a disambiguation page and a list article; being neither one nor the other.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question, with apologies for its late arrival: How would this proposal handle a case like Akitsushima, with multiple ships but no other notable topic with that name? Currently, the set index is at the base name. Would we move that page to List of ships named Akitsushima, leaving a redirect? Certes (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Either that, Akitsushima (ship index), per my comments below, or it could just stay where it is if there is no other meaning of Akitsushima. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No, you shouldn't have Akitsushima redirect to Akitsushima (ship index), per WP:PRECISION. If a qualifier is needed, then that implies there's something it needs to be qualified from. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I think the proposal is that Akitsushima redirect to List of ships named Akitsushima. Or are we !voting on an amended proposal with a "stay where it is" option, where ship indices take the base name if available and only add the List of ships named...' prefix when the base name is in use for a primary topic or dab? Certes (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Right, this proposal is to use "List of" for all ship indexes, but it has the observation that the base name is acceptable if available. The base name redirecting to a "List of" title works. I can't answer the question of what we're !voting on. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
          • In the case of Akitsushima, is there a need to disambiguate from anything other than a ship? Mjroots2 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
            • No. (There may be an argument for redirecting Akitsushima (something) to Names of Japan, but I'm using it here as an example of an ambiguous ship-only term.) Certes (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Disagree as it is not ship-only. The historic name for Japan is a likely reason for enquiry and there is a substantive paragraph in Names of Japan#Classical names, so that should be found via a DAB page. A stand-alone article is not required for a DAB entry, I think. Nevertheless, the point is a valid one - multiple-use ship names of a more contrived kind, without established non-ship meanings, certainly exist, eg Stena Germanica or Queen of the Mississippi. Davidships (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal III

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

---

All articles on full-rigged ships shall be titled in the style "Foo (full-rigged ship)". If disambiguation is needed, then it shall be done by adding the year of launch before the disambiguator. Thus Foo (1804 full-rigged ship), Foo (1847 full-rigged ship) etc. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As above, all articles on full-rigged ship that require disambiguation should use "full-rigged ship" as the parenthetical qualifier. If the full-rigged ship topic is the primary topic for "Foo", though, the article should be titled "Foo" (with no parenthetical disambiguating term), since it's not ambiguous, per WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd change the above to "...that require disambiguation from other ships launched in the same year under the same name...". That being said, assuming the year is the primary second level disambiguator (ship → 1836 ship → 1836 full-rigged ship). Tupsumato (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Cautious support. If we use "ship" as a general top-level disambiguator, we only need to rename the articles where multiple types of ships using the same name were launched in the same year, and one of them was a full-rigged ship. My intention was to release the word "ship" for all ships and not reserve it for a single ship type — if we now rename all full-rigged ship articles, then what articles should use the disambiguator "ship" because they too could use the ship type specific disambiguator such as "tanker" or "sloop"?

Here's my proposed multi-level disambiguation scheme:

• Foo — just one ship named "Foo"; no article about anything named "Foo". No ship index page required.

• Foo (ship) — just one ship named after "Foo". No ship index page required.

• Foo (1836 ship) — multiple ships named "Foo" launched in different years; this one in 1836. "Foo (ship)" redirects to ship index page which lists other ships named "Foo".

• Foo (1836 full-rigged ship) — multiple ships named "Foo" launched in 1836; this one is the full-rigged ship. "Foo (1836 ship)" redirects to ship index page which lists other ships named "Foo", including the other ones launched in 1836.

Tupsumato (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral. As the age of sail is (for better or for worse) not my area of expertise, I can't opine one way or another on whether or not this would Still Be Proper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as modified in the multi-level version. I have long believed that the alleged restriction of "ship" to full-rigged sailing ships is a triumph of the arcane over common usage. While undoubtedly historically correct, ambiguity and obscurity are better avoided by "full-rigged ship", or for variety "the ship-rigged Foo" etc in prose. (I do still have a lurking concern about the use of launch years rather than completion years for merchant ships, which often makes WP one or more years different to other sources, including those often cited, but I fear that that water long passed under the bridge.) Davidships (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• support: were 'ship', as a disambiguator, defined to mean 'full-rigged ship', I would expect to find that definition documented in WP:NCSHIPS; it is not so there can be no expectation that editors and readers will ever know or understand that Foo (ship) is really a full-rigged ship.—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as modified in the multi-level version, per Davidships. Foo (ship) distinguishes from Foo (band) etc.; Foo (full-rigged ship) distinguishes from Foo (aircraft carrier) etc. and is necessary only where Foo (ship) would be ambiguous with the broader meaning of ship. Certes (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal IV

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

---

If "ship" becomes a common disambiguator, we should get rid of "ambiguous non-established prefixes" (there's probably a word for these) such as "MS", "MV" and "MT" in case of most ships. Unlike standard prefixes given by navies etc. or other well-established prefix es(e.g. RMS Titanic), often the selection of the prefix is at the discretion of the article's creator. In nine cases out of ten, we don't even need the "ship" disambiguator when the ships are given unique names such as Costa Concordia. Tupsumato (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Made a separate proposal as per Mjroot's suggestion. Tupsumato (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see no need to lose ship prefixes from ship articles. Even the ultra-rare QSMV is valid. Given the option, I'd go the other way and require ship articles for non-wind-powered vessels to use a ship prefix. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Few questions: Who would decide the prefix if there's no WP:RS to cite — MV or MS? What if all sources use "MV" for a vessel that is clearly a motor tanker — should we stick to that as per general guidelines? What if no source uses QSMV — should we begin a practice? Also, while I note that this discussion is about disambiguation, there's a large number of articles which include a prefix even though there is no need to disambiguate — we do we need to support such practice that just adds more clutter to the article name? The article can still begin with "MV Foo is a ship...". Tupsumato (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

MV/MS are interchangeable (motor vessel/motor ship). Some sources use MT for motor tanker. Whichever to use is down to creator's choice (my preference is MV). QSMV is sourced in the one instance I know of it being used. I would not support any editor making up a prefix though. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. As long as there is a redirect from the article name without the prefix, the prefix should be included, as prefixes are generally in common useage in sources for vesses that have them. I completely agree that prefixes shouldn't be used if they aren't used in sources, but that's kinda the rulez already. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the proliferation of SS/MV etc is an unwelcome trend on WP just at the same time as they a used less and less elsewhere. WP:SHIPNAME has it about right "An article about a ship not known** to have a prefix should use only the ship's name", "Since the optional prefix is, in fact, optional, it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources" and "if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name". **I take it that "not known" here is referring to WP:COMMONNAME (and not in the sense that it would be possible to apply one or multiple prefixes to virtually any ship if there was a cogent reason to do so). WP:SHIPNAME just needs applying, not revising ... nor being ignored. Davidships (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are ships special?

A few of us joining this conversation know more about disambiguation than we do about ships. Please can someone briefly remind us why ships can't be handled as a section of a dab page like people, songs, etc.? (Please don't misread this question as making a rhetorical point that ships aren't special. Clearly they are, but I haven't quite got my head around the reasons.) Certes (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this answers to your question, but one thing that sets ships apart from people and songs is that they change names, and a ship index page can also point to articles about vessels which are no longer known under the indexed name. Tupsumato (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

People also change names — Margaret Roberts lists Mrs. Thatcher under her maiden name; Carter lists Shawn Carter aka Jay-Z — but maybe it's a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. Certes (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ships do change names, a ship may have many names during its career. SS America (1939) had seven different names. Two hatnotes on that article point to three different ship index pages. This would be reduced to two pages under the proposed system. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A ship can be listed on a disambiguation page under a former name. I too don't really see the need for the set of ship index pages. Looking at the example above leads to the sad fact that West Point (disambiguation) lists one, but not the other, of the two ships listed in the USS West Point set index, leaving scope for confusion. Most non-ship-geeks wanting to find out about a ship called "USS West Point" are, I suggest, much more likely to look for West Point and follow the hatnote from there, rather than look for USS West Point. PamD 21:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: I've fixed that omission. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

From responses to other points above, it seems that ships are special (but not unique) in that coverage of a less famous ship consists of a brief description and perhaps a reference or two. There is too much information for a disambiguation page entry, not enough for a stub article, but the right amount for an entry in a set index or similar. Does that sound right? Certes (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And where ships are also topics for an ambiguous title that has a disambiguation page, the disambiguation page also lists the ships that are covered in Wikipedia (and can also "See also" the set index). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a danger that rules for ships could become so complicated that only the most purist and dedicated ship-geek is ever
(a) going to write an article about a notable ship and
(b) satisfactorily find a ship that they try and look up in Wikipedia?
I have tried to digest the above suggestions, but it seems the only real help comes from the disambiguation experts. The problems mentioned seem to arise from editors not making proper use of existing disambiguation pages (West Point example given above) - and these and redirects can deal with changes of name, etc.
Using rig (eg Full-rigged ship) is inadequate, as rigs change (e.g. Cutty Sark, Fiery Cross (clipper) - both full rigged ships that ended up as Barque), prefix (MV, RMS, SS, etc.) brings the ship-geek to the fore and makes Wikipedia less readable for those outside that category. Year of build seems to have value, especially when one ship owner has a series of ships with the same name (for instance, repeated use of Adriatic by the White Star Line). Where there is still ambiguity, why not use Port of registration? With military vessels, I acknowledge value in the ship prefix, but I get the impression that the owners of such vessels are more rigid in their prefix rules. I hope my simplistic tone has not missed vital complexities of the debate.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The port of registry is a volatile property, changing every time the ship changes flag and sometimes also when it changes owner within the same country. Furthermore, today many ships are registered under a flag of convenience, giving them really strange and faraway home ports which have no connection to their career. Also, even though I count as a ship geek, I have absolutely no idea where half of my ships are registered today. When it comes to sailing ships, can't we just disambiguate either by best-known or last rigging, or just "ship" if there's no need to go into details (assuming we use "full-rigged ship" for "ship rigging" from now on). There can't be too many articles where this is an actual issue. Tupsumato (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about port of registry - bad idea on my part. I would like to know if year of build often fails as a disambiguator -are there really a lot of problems? With sailing ships, the last rig is (a) possibly unknown, (b) not the most notable feature of the vessel in most cases (Cutty Sark is still the best example here) - rig is and was easily changed when shipowners got short of money for crew and expensive refits.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever system is used, I think it should pass the HMS Carrick/City of Adelaide (1864)/City of Adelaide (1838)/City of Adelaide/Adelaide (disambiguation) test. (Let's call it the "HMS Carrick" test for short). The first 2 ships are the same vessel under different names. The 1864 vessel is highly notable as a major immigrant ship with an important revolutionary method of construction. The 1838 vessel was also an immigrant ship. Obviously the actual city with the name Adelaide is important and the disambiguation page picks up 6 other ships/ship related subjects (including an RAN vessel). So, look at this from the encyclopedia user perspective - whichever of these entities that you look for on Wikipedia, I suggest that you are going to find what you want in one or two steps. If there was another "City of Adelaide" ship that editors had not noticed, it would be very easy to insert a new article for that vessel into this framework. I think what we have here is a system that works. Would any of the proposals laid out above pass the HMS Carrick test? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: sometimes even a year of launch isn't enough. We then disambiguate by builder and year. Even then, there is possibly going to be a case of two ships built by "Builder X" and launched in same year carrying the same name at some point in their careers. Hopefully, if that ever happens, they will not have been launched in the same month! Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

I've closed two of the four proposals, leaving I and II to do. Both have a slight consensus (my scoring system is ½ for a weak support/oppose, 1 for a support/oppose, 0 for neutral). Both end up with a score of +1.

I'm minded to go the shipindex route however, for the reason that we are potentially going to end up with lists with as few as two entries - such as the two ships named Empire Oil, one a steamship, the other a motor vessel. Only one of the two currently has an article. Barring any violent objections, I'll close the other two discussions in a couple of days. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Question re Proposal IV. Am I right in assuming that the consequence of no consensus for change is that the present WP:SHIPNAME continues to apply. Davidships (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The proposal was for a change. There was no consensus for the proposal (tied at 2 for, 2 against), therefore the status quo is maintained. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Question re Proposal I. This proposal had two variants, the difference being the naming of a ship index with no non-ship topic, e.g. Stena Germanica. What title should that ship index now have, and what other titles (if any) should redirect to it? Certes (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be Stena Germanica (ship index). However, given that there is an objection below, let's not be in a hurry to move pages. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be List of ships named Stena Germanica. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

...and should Stena Germanica redirect to Stena Germanica (ship index)? That would be a new exception to WP:PRECISE, but the alternative of deleting Stena Germanica feels much worse. Certes (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It could do, or it could point to the article on the current ship. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, a title shouldn't redirect to the same title with a parenthetical qualifier, per WP:PRECISION. A proposal to do so should be made at WT:TITLE as opposed to forming a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, you closed your own proposals, and announced your "scoring" system with the closing? I'm minded to continue along the non WP:LOCALCONSENSUS route. The "arguments" for following the broader consensus of SIAs and list articles are stronger than the (ship index) rationales. The reason about lists with a few as two entries is irrelevant to the titling of those list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: I announced an intention to close a good three days before I closed, and explained how I was scoring the responses to give clarity as to how I came to the conclusion that both proposals had a slight consensus. I also stated that in the absence of any violent objections I would be closing the proposals, both of which had been open long enough for editors to comment on.

Are you disagreeing with my assessment of any of the four proposals? Re I and II, are you contending that the arguments in favour of II are stronger than those of I?

You will notice that I have not amended WP:NC-S, as I had a suspicion that there might be a post-closure objection. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I missed the intention to close. The proposals don't have any slight consensus here, but one of them does align with the broader consensuses of lists in general and SIAs in general, so yes, II is much stronger than the proposed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of I (local consensuses are bad). Proposals III and IV are fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@JHunterJ:, I've re-closed in favour of Proposal II. Would suggest that all such lists must have three or more entries. If there are only two ships with the same name, they can be dealt with by way of hatnotes. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

When the Keepers of the 'Lists Of' break out the pitchforks and torches, I reserve the right to fire some piscine-propelled 'I told you so's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Seconded, although WP:Lists were informed of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If the keepers of "lists of" don't want to keep all "lists of", that doesn't stop these SIAs or all SIAs from being lists. So that'll be up to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That may work if both ships have articles. If not, the ship index is probably the only way to document them. Another question is what to do when there's only one ship and it lacks enough material or notability for an article. Certes (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

We now have List of ships named Albatross. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've amended WP:SHIPDAB to take account of the above discussions. Once this thread gets archived, I'll add a wikilink to the text so that people will be able to find this discussion and verify the statement. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

SS Irish Pine

A request has been made to move the SS Irish Pine (1919) article. Opinions welcome at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

NATO names

Hi all, just to be clear, ship articles named with a NATO reporting name/code word, instead of a native name, such as Kilo-class submarine are not to be italicized? I'm asking because, if the NATO name is sufficient enough for us to use as the article's page title, does that not also make it sufficient enough for italics? I don't know if there is a policy or guideline on this, or if it was decided locally at some point, but like I said, I'm just seeking clarification. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 22:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Technically, it's still not the name of the ship, so it shouldn't be. In useage-ly, it's a disgusting mess as I've seen it italicised, not italicised, "in quotes", in CAPS, and more. Best, I think, to use the simplest form as "normal word, not italicsed". (And try not to talk about Fight Club too much, lest the wonks come in and move them all to their Russian "Type" designators as all the missiles were, WP:COMMONNAME be hanged...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

eek... didn't know. Hope I haven't opened a can of worms here. On the one hand, it sounds like there could be quite a mess out there with pages that belong to this project. I'm willing to help with clean up, if needed. On the other hand, I'm happy to let it be, if that's what you guys think is best. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm half-joking, but all the missiles were moved to their alphanumeric codes which are utterly meaningless as titles, "because it's the official name" etc.etc - for instance R-77 (which tells you jack and all) instead of AA-12 Adder (oh that's what it is-). IMHO it'd probably be best to leave them at "NATO designator, non-itialicsed" if that's what they're currently at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the status of any other related page titles. I only asked because I happened to come across the Kilo page, (mentioned above). But... meh, I'll leave it be. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCSHIPS is, more-or-less clear on the use of italic class names. When the class takes its name from a member of the class, the class name is italicized: Ohio class takes its name from class member USS Ohio (SSBN-726). For a class that does not take its name from a member of the class, the class name is not italicized: Kilo class because there is no Kilo boat in the class.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's that then. Thanks for the info. - ^theWOLFchild 13:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Portal placement

I've run into a small disagreement with another editor over the placement of Portals, WP:PORTAL says they can be placed in the "See also" section, or if a "See also" section isn't available in the "External links" section. Either way I think they look better just before any navboxes or at the bottom of the article if no navboxes are present. Maybe this is too minor of a thing but I was wondering if we could come to some sort of consensus as to the placement and add it to the Ships MoS. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We should formally decide this as I don't find them all that useful, certainly less so than navboxes, and would prefer to see them all the way at the bottom in the external links section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Sturmvogel 66, they should go to the very bottom. But wherever it's decided they should go, it should be standardized across all pages. - ^theWOLFchild 23:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree they should be lumped in with the commonscat template - on its documentation page there are placement rules, which I think should be perfectly usable for project portals. That would see them placed in the external links section, or if the article doesn't have one of those, in the last section of the page (typically the reference section). That's the approach I've used in the past (see for instance SMS_Kaiser_(1911)#References). Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm, would it be possible to produce a version of {{Portal}} that includes {{commonscat}} functionality? Of course, there's also still the ongoing ping-pong over where the latter of those belongs: See Also or External Links...common practice in WP:AIR is to put portals in See Also. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: I concur with the idea of placing it after the {{commonscat}} if using a plain {{Portal}}, and I think we should place it at the end of any external links if using {{Portal bar}}. Pennsy22 (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Garth Castle (Union-Castle Line): SS or RMS?

Is the list at Royal Mail Ship#List of Royal Mail Ships complete? Alternatively, were all of Union-Castle Line's ships entitled to the RMS prefix, or just some? The one that I'm interested in is Garth Castle, I would like to know whether it was RMS or SS circa 1900. There is also a date discrepancy: at Union-Castle Line#Ships, the text shows 1880–1901 but the table has an entry showing that it was built in 1910; further, File:StateLibQld 1 112680 Garth Castle (ship).jpg says that it was built in Glasgow in 1920. Were there perhaps two or even three ships of this name with the same shipping line, at different periods? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, two different Garth Castles: 1st was owned by Castle Line from new in 1881 until the merger with Union in 1900, then sold as surplus the following year [1]. She certainly started life as a contract mail ship, but was transferred to the slower intermediate service in 1890 and her passenger capacity reduced a few years later; so may well not have been a RMS in 1900. Not sure whether the 2nd Garth Castle (1910-1939) was ever a RMS [2]. Davidships (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Stub label for Romania

Hello, I would like to request the creation of a proper mil-ship-stub template for the Romanian Navy. For the template's picture, I suggest using one from Amiral Murgescu, preferably the one from her infobox but the diagram works as well. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brown Water Admiral: If you wish to propose a new stub template, please do so at WP:WSS/P and be prepared to justify it in accordance with the rules set out there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brown Water Admiral: Actually, I've gone ahead and boldly created {{Romania-mil-ship-stub}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou Bushranger, much appreciated. 06:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z31 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z31; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z32 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z32; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cancelled USN submarine names

I am working on what will be "List of Balao-class submarines" in my sandbox and have run into a problem with the redirect structure for some cancelled submarines with unique names in the USN, which were never laid down and thus had no physical existence. At some point stub articles were created for some or all of these, such as USS Espada (SS-355), since they have DANFS articles. Some of these stub articles have since been replaced with redirect pages such as USS Dugong and USS Dugong (SS-353), redirecting to the class article. In other cases a name-only redirect goes to the stub article. What is the preferred solution so I can implement it? Redirects to the class article only, or stub article with name-only title and a name-hull number redirect to it? I don't mind renaming the stub articles, thus creating redirect pages with the hull numbers, but how do I deal with the conflict created by some of the redirect pages? Can I delete the redirect pages (how?) and then rename the stub articles? RobDuch (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Or should I take this question to WP:MILHIST? RobDuch (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are independently notable, cancelled ships don't merit articles. The exceptions are vessels like Japanese battleship Tosa or German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, but both of those ships have had significant coverage in independent sources. Cancelled, mass-produced ships like these submarines or convoy escorts that were ordered by the hundreds will likely not attract that level of attention. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

( ...or the USS United States (CVA-58) - wolf 15:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC))

Ships Record of Movement

For some bigger ships the record of movement can be traced. Would it be a good idea to include it or is an overkill? Will a generic statement like ships sailed between A and B for 5 years be good enough? Crook1 (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Regular routes or area of operation can be included in the article, but there's no need to provide up-to-date information about where the ship is — that's what the IMO/MMSI number template with a link to MarineTraffic is for. Tupsumato (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm talking about old ships though, circa 1900-1940s. No MarineTraffic for those. Basically, my question if info like that falls under scope of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, or for more specialized websites.Crook1 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say this is probably a case where it'd be an appropriate external link, but not an encyclopedic article part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

An extended recording of such detail would be non-encyclopaedic, in the same way as a week-by-week listing of all the engagements of a musician would be - and it might verge on OR. There are, unfortunately, already some articles in the US Navy field which are like this, probably because they have been copy-and-pasted from DANFS without any editing or consideration of what should be in an encyclopaedia - a spring-clean is somewhat overdue in some cases. Davidships (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm of a different opinion to Davidships. Such information can be included in a article. SS Fort Stikine is an example of an article with a vessel's detailed history recorded. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The first Queen Mary crossed the Atlantic 1000 times, according to our article. Kablammo (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. I guess there are no established rules here. I guess I'll have to decide whether it's worth it in each particular case.Crook1 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a question

If a ship is built as a warship, then gets converted to a merchant ship, then is re-armed again and recommissioned as warship, is she in the end an auxiliary or still a purpose-built warship? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you answered your own question with the very first words of your post; "If a ship is built as a warship...". But, is there a specific ship you are enquiring about? - ^theWOLFchild 15:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, I intend to make her an article so I need to get this out of the way. It's the Romanian minelayer Aurora. She was built in 1909 as a minelayer for the Austro-Hungarian Navy, given to Romania after WW1 and converted to Danubian tug. She was rebuilt in 1937 and recommissioned as minelayer in 1939. However, Romanian and even some English sources refer to her as an "auxiliary" minelayer, since she served as a tug before WW2, but shouldn't her initial building as a warship (which seems to be overlooked) counter that? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

None of this stuff is set in stone, so don't sweat the definitions, IMO. I'd call her a purpose-built warship, myself, despite her conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. You see, I do have a standard when making ship articles: She has to be a purpose-built warship. I don't do armed civilian ships. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Like you already pointed out, she was built as a warship in the first place. Despite any intermediate civilian use for non-combat purposes, she began, and ended as a warship, therefore, that is exactly what she is. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Here she is guys, my last article for this year: NMS Aurora. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Good work! -- Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've made a couple of additions and created some redirects. Refs 2 & 3 need a |language= and |trans-title adding. Is the language Romanian? Mjroots (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yes. Most WW2 Romanian Navy warships (mostly sizable ones, over 200 tons) get decent coverage in English-language sources, but a select few, like our little minelayer here, would pretty much be stubs without Romanian sources. I mostly use them to provide details and confirmation to English sources, but in this instance they are core. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article. "NMS" needs explanatory footnote, or link to a definition. Surprisingly there isn't one in Romanian Naval Forces, though it is listed in NMS. Davidships (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Navigation room?

A new article, called "Navigation room", has appeared. It has one Spanish reference. It seems to be about a segment of a ship's bridge, but seems to be written by a non-native speaker of English, since it employs definite articles in places where they ordinarily don't occur. It also is a term that doesn't show up in a Google search of the term in books. Perhaps it should be nominated for speedy deletion. User:HopsonRoad 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is needed as most ships no longer have a separate navigation/chart room. The information can be included in the article about bridge/pilothouse. Tupsumato (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

British Shipbuilders Evolution template

This template seems to have multiple tech problems, all of which are way beyond my comprehension or ability to do anything about them. Only to say that it is really valuable presentation that is needed in the British Shipbuilders article in some form or other. I have raised the issue on both talk pages, and I am sure that expert eyes on this Project will be able to guide and help. Davidships (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The main guns of Amiral Murgescu

NMS Amiral Murgescu is my flagship. Metaphorically speaking. She is the ship I care about the most. So you can tell, that I am troubled about the differing sources regarding her main armament. It seems that sources are divided between 102 mm and 105 mm Bofors main guns. I will present the facts as they are:

• Arguments for 105 mm:
  • Several English language sources, including "heavy" ones like Conway's fighting ships.
  • Established existence of a 105 mm Bofors naval gun, four twin mounts of this gun being used by the two Finnish beasts Väinämöinen and Ilmarinen.

• Arguments for 102 mm:
  • Literally all dedicated Romanian-language sources, and several English sources.
  • Established existence of a 102 mm Bofors gun, also in the Romanian Navy, used aboard the submarine Delfinul. This is literally the only other such gun besides the two of Murgescu.

So what do you think guys? Who's getting it wrong? In her article I went with the 102 mm, should I change it? Brown Water Admiral (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Campbell's definitive Naval Weapons of World War II list the gun as a 105mm SK C/32 (and for Delfinul, he lists the gun as 101.6mm /35 [the Schneider-Armstrong 1914-15 pattern gun]). Neither is a Bofors design. As far as I'm aware, Bofors never built a 102mm gun. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That contrasts sharply with all related Romanian literature, which universally gives them as 102 mm Bofors. Campbell included, we already got 3 English sources listing it as a 105 mm gun. And since this is the EngWiki, we should probably go with that. Care to tell me the full title, publisher, author name, year and page? I'm sure I'll need it as a reference, can;t seem to find it on Google Books. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the 102mm Bofors does not exist, so the Romanian literature is simply wrong. Someone no doubt made an error a long time ago and it was simply repeated by other authors who didn't bother to look at the original sources and lacked the expertise to know better. The page number is 389, and the full citation can be found in the 10.5cm article linked above. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thankyou very much. One more thing though: Does Campbell say anything else about her other guns? I'd like to know his take on her full armament. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there isn't anything else on Amiral Murgescu - his book is broken down by gun type, not by ship. On a side note, Romania did have some 120mm Bofors guns aboard the Regele Ferdinands, which is probably where the confusion arose. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I modified her article and her armament, seems about right now. But, if you can access Conway's Fighting Ships for 1922-1946, please go to page 362, where her section is, and tell me if it writes about her depth charge throwers. I once saw a screencap of her section but forgot to save it, I recall though that at the line about her armament it said two "DCTs", but I'm not sure anymore. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

2-105 mm AA (2x1), 2-37 mm AA (2x1), 4-20mm, 135 mines. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, so no. Thankyou Ed, I found a source that mentions her two throwers and all her armament is okay now. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin and HMS Agincourt

Are these two ships "Super-dreadnought" or "Dreadnought" or one of them is "Super-dreadnought" or "Dreadnought" ?

Judging by their building date , their tons and guns.

Either of them can fulfill some aspect to be "Super-dreadnought" but not all , makes me confuse.

So I need someone to clarify about this.

Thank you. -- Comrade John (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A superdreadnought is a dreadnought armed with guns greater than 12", all on the centerline, so Erin is one and Agincourt is not. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Superdreadnought was never a term officially used by any navy, only by the press, so definitions varied. And it fell out of use after World War I. I've seen it defined recently as a ship with 13.5-inch or bigger guns. And by that criteria, Erin would be a super-dreadnought and Agincourt would not. But please don't try to add the term to the articles without sourcing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both of your reply and I won't edit without sourcing it , don't worry. Additional question , just after I ask this question , may little bit off topic: Despite being called as Treaty battleship , is Nelson-class battleship consider as "Super-dreadnought" too ? -- Comrade John (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

By the time the Nelsons were commissioned, the 'dreadnought' vs 'super-dreadnought' distinction was no longer being made, really. By the definition of 'super-dreadnought' during the time it was in use, they are, but using it to describe them would be akin to referring to a Boeing 747 as a "flying machine" or a Hyundai Accent as a "horseless carriage".- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reply , brother.-- Comrade John (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Help requested

There is a requested move discussion in progress at Talk:MY Farley Mowat that could do with some input from people with more experience in ship names than the people who typically edit this and related articles. It regards an issue that has been ongoing for many years, mainly regarding use of the MV and MY prefixes. Any help there would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Big request

If any of you guys has access to the first two volumes of Conway's Fighting Ships (1860-1905; 1906-1921), or at least one of the two, please give me the stats of the three Romanian small torpedo boats, Smeul, Sborul and Naluca. They are found at page 419 in the first volume, and 421 in the second one. Please, it would be invaluable to me. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that boats under 100 tons are generally considered non-notable?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - no necessarily the case. Vessels under 100t/100ft are outside the scope of this project, but they may still be notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do, but I need it for a composite article I will make in the near future, by the end of February at most, about the entire history of torpedo boats in the Romanian Navy. It will include heavies too, like the four WW2 Romanian S-boats and the seven 250t class boats it got after WW1. So if you please. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's not a hard and fast rule - PT-109 is the most obvious example. If the sources are there, and there might well be information in Romanian literature, then articles might be warranted.

Send me an email and I'll send you scans of the pages. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

<redacted>

Sent - I had meant to send me an email through Wikipedia's "email user" function, so you wouldn't have to post your email publicly here. If you'd rather not have it here, I can rev-delete it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, commissioned vessels even of so small a size are often notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There are also basic details in the 1902 edition of Brassey's Naval Annual on Internet Archive together with the even smaller 2nd class torpedo boats Soimnl and Vulturul- p. 285 is the relevant page (and presumably the ships will be in other editions). This might help to supplement what's in Conway's.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Command structure on a RN capital ship in the 1920s?

Thinking specifically of HMS Royal Sovereign in 1926, what would its complement of senior officers (Commander or above) have been? What would their (broad) roles have been? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd not swear to it, but even Hood would probably only had a captain as CO and her XO would have been a full commander, as would her chief engineer. Gunnery officer and the like would probably have been lieutenant commanders, AFAIK, although I've seen a few navigators as full commanders. That's for the ship herself, though, as she often embarked an admiral and his staff and their ranks were generally higher than those of the ship for equivalent positions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If a ship was in reserve or a lengthy refitting, her officer roster would likely be somewhat incomplete as she'd be lacking a full crew, and all of the positions would often be filled by somebody one rank lower.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The January 1921 Navy List entry for Royal Sovereign is here. To me it looks like Captain as CO, Commanders as XO and Chief Engineer, with a "Captain RMA" (Royal Marine Artillery), a "Surgeon Com." and a "Paymaster Com" as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

German World War II destroyers

I notice our articles on these ships are entitled in the format Type 1934-class destroyer, Type 1936-class destroyer, etc. Is there a reason for this? AFAIK a ship type is a particular design that a group of ships is built to, while a ship class is a group of ships built to a particular design, so the format seems a bit redundant. Are there any objections to these titles being trimmed down, to (for example) "Type 1934 destroyer" (etc) as they are in sources like Conway? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have wondered about that. Here's a search that finds articles with titles beginning with the word 'type'. I started wondering about these kinds of articles when I was working on replacing {{sclass2}} templates with {{sclass2-}}. It occurred to me then that something like an {{stype2}} template would be more appropriate than the, more-or-less misuse, of {{sclass2-}} that we are currently using. It also occurs to me that for 'type' articles with ship infoboxes, we should tweak {{infobox ship class overview}} so that the title bar displays 'Type overview' when the article title begins with 'Type'. I think that I agree that 'Type <name>-class <ship type> is redundant.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd assume it has something to do with how the Germans designated the ships. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: If it's any help, the German WP just has Zestorer 1934 (etc) as its article titles (viz); Erich Groeners book refers to them as 1934 destroyers, but then lists them by class using the ship name (ie Z1 class); he doesn't specifically call them 1934 type, though he does for the WWI destroyers ( eg V170 class/ “Laid down as 1918M (mobilisation) type ...”); make of that what you will.. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like it would make sense, but I'd love to get Sturmvogel 66's input before committing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Koop & Schmolke's German Destroyers of World War II: Warships of the Kriegsmarine also refer to them simply as "Type 1934 destroyers". On the other hand, Whitley's Destroyers of World War Two calls them the "Type 34 class". Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The postwar Brits and Chinese are also fond of Type XX designations although I don't offhand recall if they use Type XX class or Type XX destroyer/frigate, etc. I suspect that is not something that they worry much about, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It's Type XX destroyer/frigate/etc. Some of these, such as Type 42 destroyer or Type 26 frigate, have received plenty of press, usually because the Government won't pay for what the Royal Navy say that they need. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

<od> So, can I take it then that everyone is OK with this? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

All good from me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I need some scans

Y'guys, does any of you happen to own Whitley's Destroyers of World War II? I need the scans of Romania's chapter, which is pages 223-224 to 227, I think. Somewhere around that anyway. If you do, please e-mail me said pages to bota_tobias@yahoo.com, thankyou in advance. Torpilorul (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As much info as possible about this vessel please

Guys, this is Fulgerul. The first sea-going warship of the Romanian Navy. The first sea-going warship of the most successful navy of WW2, the only navy that fought throughout the war without losing any unit of its main force of destroyers and submarines (as per Warship 2001-2002), while itself inflicting the loss of one large destroyer and anywhere from a dozen to 20 submarines, these being accounted by various sources. Yet this historically-important vessel, which kick-started what I mentioned above, has very little available info on Google Translate. Thus, I appeal to you all: if you happen to find in any of your naval history books anything related to this old little gem, please add it to her article or at least tell me about it. Torpilorul (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Navy - promotion on retirement?

Can anyone expand further on this? AIUI, it was introduced back in the age of sail as a way of offering golden handshakes to aging officers, as a way to encourage them to retire and make space on the seniority ladder for younger men. They could have a promotion, provided that they agreed to immediately retire, taking the increased title and pension with them. How did this work in the 1930s? Particularly for someone of Commander rank, who was made a Captain on retirement in their 40s? Specifically I'm looking at Capt R.D. Binney. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not my field, but if you want to widen the search there are knowledgable members on this sort of thing in the online Marhst-L discussion group: [3]. Davidships (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no chance he'd ever have achieved Captain on the Active List after nearly 14 years as a Commander, so he was retiring before he would have been forced to at the age of 50. The promotion on retirement was a gesture because he retired early. Incidentally he joined the Navy as a Naval Cadet, not as a Midshipman. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly it was going to be something like that, but was this common at the time?

Can you help any further with the cadet / midshipman issue? Any sources that you can offer? The source says, "joined the Royal Navy as a Midshipman in 1903" (so he'd have been 14-15) - presumably this age would be a cadet, and so he'd have become a midshipman at some unknown time after this? He was a lieutenant by 20. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Using Current and Correct Vessel Class Designations

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

---

Recent corrections to update vessel designations have been repeatedly reverted to incorrect and outdated names. To ensure accuracy and reliability, articles should have the current and correct designation used throughout encyclopedia. The United States Secretary of the Navy is the authority for designations and maintains the Naval Vessel Register which is the official inventory of ships of the United States Navy.

For example, the USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) is a type of vessel operated by Military Sealift Command. They were official re-designated by the United States Secretary of the Navy in 2015 to Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB), having previously been called Mobile Landing Platform and Afloat Forward Staging Base. Corrections to articles to reflect the correct designation of the vessels have repeatedly reverted to outdated monikers. Is there preference for using older information instead of correct designations per current and official U.S. Navy policy?

list of sources

The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/5030.8C.pdf cleary states in Enclosure 1, page 3 that they vessels are known as "Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB)." The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-3 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_3_5415.HTML The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-4 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_4_5422.HTML The Naval Register, the official record of U.S. Navy ships, referring to ESB-5 as an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_ESB_5_5741.HTML Naval Sea System Command announcement regarding the Expeditionary Sea Base as "Expeditionary Sea Bas": http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Team-Ships/PEO-Ships/Exp-Transfer-Dock-ESD-Exp-Sea-Base-ESB/ Navy press release christening the an Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=102930 Navy press release announcing the newest Expeditionary Sea Base: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=103200

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee Atoms (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - Well, a discussion about this has already begun (with an RfC tag, sort of) at the Talk:Military Sealift Command page. We should consider this as Coffee Atom's notification of that discussion and an invitation for those interested to comment there. This here is basically a re-post of his comments and list of sources from that page, and I have already replied there. I don't think we need (or want) the discussion split across two different pages and I'm not going to repost my comments and the rather lengthy list of sources I listed there supporting the designation "Expeditionary Mobile Base", over here as well. Please go to the MSC talk page to comment. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.