Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Boats

Template:WikiProject Boats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand FAC needs reviewers

The Featured Article Candidacy for HMS New Zealand needs reviewers. Please stop by and offer your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Note that the last day's theme is battleships, which I imagine will extend to other ships as well. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Locker

Operation Locker, which aims to provide comprehensive coverage of all ships lost during the period 1939-45 has been launched. Assistance from members of this WikiProject in achieving that aim is welcome. Please discuss this project at the relevant talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Soviet/Russian submarine articles

Hi, I'm new to WP:SHIP, so I might not be familiar with conventions about ships and submarines. One thing I find confusing is the naming of Soviet/Russian submarines; for example, I'm not sure if my way of starting off Russian submarine K-114 Tula is correct -- "RFS Tula (K-114)" (similar to "USS Ohio (SSGN-726)") versus what I would've thought would be more widespread "K-114 Tula, based on other Russian sub articles. Can somebody please explain this? And also, when should RFS be used?

Another issue with these articles are the chronic lack of sources. Due to the nature of their missions (nuclear deterrence), and being a Russian sub (and thus English coverage is not sufficient for an article), I have to resort to WikiMapia and Deepstorm.ru as a sources, otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough info to properly write an article. Are my actions of using the sources above correct? What should I do? Thank you in advance for your replies. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) to comment on the names used by the Russian Navy. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably your best source for Russian/Soviet submarines up to the end of the Cold War: Polmar, Norman, and Jurrien Noot (1991). Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, 1718-1990. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-570-1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, thanks, but where's the missing 1991–2012? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for you to write it! Although it would be a rather short book as not many submarines were finished, nor even left harbor after the end of the Cold War. Is RFS an official prefix used by the Russians?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RFS doesn't say so. The only probably articles that could escape stub class due to the abundance of sources are Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, Soviet submarine K-159, Russian submarine TK-208 Dmitri Donskoi and Russian submarine Yury Dolgorukiy. 1991–2000 is a great black hole in Russian submarine history. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity that GlobalSecurity.org cannot be used as sources. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil, please under *no circumstances* utilize the prefix 'RFS'. This is a exclusively U.S. Navy news service bastardisation of a prefix created because, it appears, they cannot conceive of a navy that does not use prefixes. In this sense it is similar to the NATO use of 'FS' for the Marine Nationale, who also do not use prefixes themselves. I would hazard a guess that the 'K-114 Tula' or possibly 'Tula (K-114)' would be best. Maybe the best person to write to if you were that interested would probably be Norman Polmar, who watches these things for the U.S. Naval Institute.

I'm a bit surprised that you complain of a lack of sources since the invention of Google Translate. Based on my limited reading of Ru-wiki in the naval area, the external links provided at most Ru-wiki articles provide a feast of information. Just looking at Ochakov within the last 24 hours, the links there even in the English version seem to be sufficient to write/expand articles. There is also on some forum site a detailed list of submarines and deployments, and there's also Kommersant-Vlast's 2008 article on the Russian Navy, quite detailed, of which an English version is linked through the Russian Navy external links list. Please ask if you have further queries - I can probably dig some more stuff up. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about you, but I would've thought that anything ending in .net is non RS. The reluctance to use GlobalSecurity.org, to me, has no basis at all, and I'd like to be overturned. For the record, I do use Google Translate. And what was that mention about Norman Polmar? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're being a bit more strict about sources than me then. The reluctance to use GS.org, at least for me, is that it uses enormous amounts of often public-domain USgov sources, off-net or old material, but did not cite them at all well in the early years of it's existence. This I think was John Pike just moving all his FAS stuff to GS.org, and he appears never to have been too worried about citing sources. No problem for him at the time - FAS and GS.org have good reputations - but major problem for us - it's unattributed material once removed. Often it came from old unit websites or the Library of Congress Country Studies, but it's very difficult to say for sure sometimes. Apologies if I managed to imply you did not use GTranslate. In that case, why don't you give me a list of submarines you're primarily interested in, and I'll help round up some reliable sources. I tend to go on a case-by-case basis for (Russian-language in this case) websites based on how authoritative they appear. Re Norman Polmar, I just mentioned that as a person you might be able to go to if you were interested in verifying the origins of the prefix RFS. As longtime editor of Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet he should be able to give an authoritative answer. We could also get a proper letter, personal details removed, OTRS compliant etc, and that might lay the 'dragon RFS' to rest once and for all. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GS also has a habit of citing its own articles with other GS articles. Even WP doesn't allow citing an article with another WP article. I feel that using GS as a source is fine for an article up to B-class and depending on the reviewer, it might even work for GA. However, it should never be used on an article going for A or FA class. I would consider GS a "weak" reliable source but certainly not a "high-quality" one that an FA requires. Brad (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) It's always been the rule here not to invent prefixes that are not used officially by the country the ship hails from. USS is an official prefix. In the past we've had to rename just about every Untersee boat to German submarine and IJS to Japanese ship. The question over CSS as Confederate States Ship has never been solved. Brad (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. I've removed the prefix. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review of Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897)

I'm currently reviewing Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897) article. As the article uses mainly offline sources as reference, I need some help with verification. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) now open

The A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

RFS prefix deletions

Since Sp33dyphil's question, I've taken a look at the list of redirects we have for 'RFS' type ships and have found one French one (see French ship Vulcain) and a bunch of Russian ones. These prefixes, in my view, should not exist as search terms - the name of the ship is sufficient. All we're doing by maintaining RFS redirects is perpetuating inaccurate information. I would like to list all RFS redirects at WP:RFD for potential deletion. What do other people think? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure about these. AFAIK, sources outside Wikipedia do refer to ships by initialisms such as RFS, IJN, DKS etc. Having the redirects in place does no harm. Should a reader search for a ship with the prefix in the search term, they will arrive at the correct article or a shipindex page as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd support keeping them, per Mjroots. 'Made up' prefixes are used outside Wikipedia to refer to ships, redirects are cheap, and keeping them will help guide readers to where they want to go. -- saberwyn 09:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

US and CS Navy ship images up for deletion

Several USN and CS Navy ship images have been placed for deletion as providing no source. The description pages show a claim of US government ownership of the images. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3 -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They're mostly nav source images, I've added the relevant links and some details to most of the images, rendering the original deletion criteria clearly invalid. The exceptions are File:CSS Virginia smokestack.jpg, which I couldn't find right away on navsource, but is superseded by higher res commons image File:Battered smokestack from C.S.S. Virginia 023.jpg anyway. And File:Uss carter hall ribbons.bmp and File:Uss proteus ribbons.bmp, which though there are medal ribbons on the navsource page, aren't exact duplicates, and in fact Carter Hall seems to have different ribbons on navsource to our version. So I'm not sure about the provenance. If anyone has a source or an idea of where they've come from, feel free to weigh in. Benea (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the commons image of Virginia has mis-identified it as being the stack of the first CSS Virginia after the Battle of Hampton Roads, rather than the second after the Battle of Trent's Reach. Benea (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not always, I got myself in trouble at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 3#File:USS Betelgeuse.jpg because the source doesn't specify it's from the US Navy, and the NH&HC site does not list the image. Navsource images are only valid if they are certainly PD, eg. if they say "official U.S. Navy photograph". :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I make no comment as to whether the images are free use and correctly licensed, merely that the claim that they be deleted as unsourced could be (and has been) easily defeated. Incidentally, why tag them as {{Do not move to Commons}}? If you are stating that they are PD in the US, then they can be transferred to commons, as commons requires the images be free use in both the country of origin and the US, and their country of origin is the US. If you are saying that these should not be transferred to commons, then we need to revisit a lot of ship images currently hosted on commons that were transferred on that basis. Benea (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about the country of origin issue – I was going off of an earlier encounter with File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg. Remind me to not do image edits at 5am any more. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, all Navsource images are PD except those which include a copyright notice, see this. The provenance of the Betelgeuse image in particular is uncertain since there appears to be no information about the photo at Navsource, and the photo doesn't appear on the current Navsource page dedicated to USS Betelgeuse. Gatoclass (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:USS Betelgeuse.jpg appears on Betelgeuse's navsource page here as 'Courtesy Elmer Brown USS Betelgeuse AK (FBM) 260 Reunion Association', which is insufficient attribution for the claim of PD-US-GOV the original uploader made, so I am certainly in agreement that unless further evidence comes to light, it cannot be reasonably asserted that it is PD. But to take File:USS Virginia (SP-1965).jpg for example, what would be the reason, if any, for preventing an upload to commons? Benea (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree on File:USS Virginia (SP-1965).jpg as the provenance of that photo is right across the top: "Photo# NH 102358" and that is the old Naval Historical Center tag. Rhe photo is clearly dated 1918 and thus any copyright is expired anyway. The photo itself is now most likely in NARA. The photo should be retained.Palmeira (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely clear as the "Copyrighted images will appear as © Name" is not always the case. Many are donated by individuals with only their names appearing without the symbol, including several of mine (all crops and not full resolution), that could become an issue with wider use. Copyright issues may be attached unless the provenance at NavSource is clearly official photography--and, no, just because the photo is by a "sailor" does not make it official PD unless in behalf of official duties. In my case I have no objections to non-commercial use. Others might, though "fair use" does come into play. For the photo in question the source given at NavSource is USS BETELGEUSE AK (FBM) 260 REUNION ASSOCIATION where the photo is their lead. It looks like a scan and looks "official" but one has to realize not all such ship photos from the air are official photos in the PD. Some commercial firms flew from ports to gather just such photos for sale to crew members and others.Palmeira (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Some clarity is needed here. A lot of the photos in question are available at the Naval History & Heritage Command photo library. One can assume that most of the photos found at navsource originated from the US Navy site. It would be more apparent that the photos are public domain if the Navy site was used for attribution. Navsource is in general quite accurate but it can't be considered an authority. Brad (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless a NavSource photo can be traced back to an official government source, Navy included, it is not clearly PD. Many photos are contributed by individuals donating photos they took privately, are not PD (despite some uninformed opinions that any photo taken from a Navy ship by a sailor is PD) and could involve Wikipedia in copyright issues. Some at NavSource are donated by corporations, and no, just because one was building the ship does not mean their photos are PD. I think the Wikipedia lawyers may have some fun soon with a trend I've noticed of "publishers" bundling Wikipedia pages for sale on such sites as Amazon. Do enough ship searches and you begin finding "books" for sale that are nothing by collated articles. Photo owners might be relatively passive about some non commercial use of their photo, on a page here. They might not be at all passive if a photo they donated to NavSource got to an article here and then to a for sale book in a sort of copyright laundering. Palmeira (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Air warfare destroyer

At the moment, Air Warfare Destroyer is a redirect to Hobart class destroyer. I don't think the term is exclusive to the Hobart class: is there a more appropriate target for the redirect, or alternaltely, could an article about this type of ship be established? -- saberwyn 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard the term applied to any other ship, and Air Warfare Destroyer would indeed refer specifically to the class (it was originally called "Australian Air Warfare Destroyer"). As opposed to air warfare destroyer - which would simply be a guided missile destroyer called by a neological term that doesn't exist (as far as I know). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

anti-aircraft cruiser redirects to cruiser, so perhaps this should just be redirected to "destroyer" as an AAW destroyer. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's anti-aircraft frigates out there -- Horizon class frigate and [[FREMM multipurpose frigate]. Best solution here is probably the IP's suggestion assuming there is something about AAW DD's in the main article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming of PT boat articles

I noticed that the articles on PT boats seem to follow the pattern "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-###". Now, since they weren't commissioned (I think) they shouldn't be at "USS PT-###" titles, but shouldn't they be at "American torpedo boat PT-###"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, they should. Similar to German schnellboots and Italian MAS boats. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether they were commissioned or not, but I've already voiced my objections to the pre-emptive disambiguation apparent on many pages. If the "USS" is dropped, I think "PT-###" would probably be fine. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no other country that uses the PT-XXX nomenclature so there's no need to disambiguate it, just like the British MGB-xxx.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

agree MTB-nnn, PT-nnn, MAS-nnn until the point at which you come across some obscure electrical component called Power Transformer 123 and then and only then do you go PT-123 (boat).GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"American torpedo boat PT-###" is what is specified by WP:NC-SHIPS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"American torpedo boat PT-###" is much better, it matches "French ship xyz" format used by ship articles. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

NC-SHIPS is a pretty controversial convention. Personally I think it should be dumped altogether, but for PT boats in particular, I see no reason to use it when the "PT-" itself should make most of the article names unique. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to drop a spanner in the works, Jane's Fighting Ships 1979–80 lists five Japanese torpedo boats PT11–15, 135 tons, 35.5 m, commissionined 1971–1975, so it looks like some sort of dab would be needed anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not much of a reason to slap a long disambiguator on every US PT boat IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe in standardisation; the "American torpedo boats" one seems to be the generally accepted one, controversial or not. Just "PT-XXX" wouldn't be proper, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of standardization too; however, in the case of NC-SHIPS, the "standard" flies in the face of the existing en.wiki standard, WP:TITLE. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that WP:TITLE links to WP:NC-SHIPS as the relevant naming convention for ships, I don't think it "flies in the face". Ships are simply done differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There is if you subscribe to the principle of standardization. It makes no sense to have a radically different approach for one Wikiproject. So I think it's only a matter of time before this issue comes up again. Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's not a whole lot of sense in the various citation and presentation (eg. {{tocright}} styles, either. I'm definitely in favor of keeping it consistent within our own topic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pelorus information

I just read the article about the Pelorus navigation instrument. I feel it could be expanded slightly - after reading it I wasn't quite sure I had enough information to understand what it was and how it was used. Partly this is due to the language used. Most Wikipedia articles -do- have sufficient information to be useful, but if the language assumes prior knowledge of key concepts and is written in a condensed manner, it can hinder the reader. Any thoughts on that? Pelorus history, design, manufacturing, operation etc ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.172.46 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just pulled my battered old copy of that edition "Bowditch" off the shelf in curiosity since it is the only reference. It isn't a "reference" at all. Most of the text is simply lifted from the book and does not even draw in other parts of the book related to use and configuration. I believe the entire second paragraph is an exact quote, though I did not check word-for-word. The book is written for mariners so terms are not explained in line. Someone with no experience is going to be lost or constantly clicking in line links here, i.e., "lubber's line" and such or just be lost. Palmeira (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Old Town Canoe Articles for deletions discussion

There is a debate about whether this subject is notable or should be deleted from Wikipedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race now open

The featured article candidacy for South American dreadnought race is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck now open

The featured article candidacy for German battleship Bismarck is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Crew lists

Some more eyes needed on HMS Postillion (J296) and HMS Gentian (K90), where Stompernz (talk · contribs) continues to readd a partial list of crewmembers. Benea (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dabbing

Current policy is that ship articles are not dabbed unless there is a need to dab. Whilst working on the various lists of shipwrecks covering the WWII years, it has become apparent that many ships shared the same name, and thus there is a need to dab them.

Therefore, I propose that the majority of merchant ship articles are housed at titles that are dabbed by year of launch as a matter of routine. Obviously, very famous ships like Titanic, Queen Elizabeth 2 etc wouldn't need to be dabbed. In the case of two ships having the same name and being launched in the same year, further dabbing could be by builder. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I must strongly oppose this notion. If you have "many ships" that share the same name, fine, disambiguate them, but there is no reason to disambiguate the rest. Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessary to dab every single ship. With access to Miramar Ship Index it's quite easy to see which ship names need dabbing and which do not. Prefixes also come into play in this regard, often there are several ships of the same name, but only one which is a steamship, for example. Manxruler (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. So the question here, as I see it, is that if a majority of article titles are dabbed, should they all be dabbed to keep the appearance of consistency? I think that's how Commons has organized their categories, so I suppose it's viable, but I think we'd need evidence that most article titles need dabbing first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

COMMONS has a pretty clumsy and redundant system IMO, that, as usual, was foisted on the project at the behest of one or two vocal users and with minimal discussion. But they do at least have the rationale of needing a system that works across multiple languages. On en.wikipedia there is no such issue, and according to WP:TITLE, articles should use the most common name and not resort to unnecessary disambiguation per WP:PRECISE. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Timofey Guzhenko

This article really needs an image but I cannot find one. Pretty please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend to ask someone from ShipSpotting.com. I've had pretty good luck with getting permissions for Wikipedia (i.e. the people have agreed to release some of their photographs under CC BY-SA 3.0). Check the Wikipedia help page about asking permissions. Tupsumato (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship for deletion

MV Spiegelgracht has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A "sznika" or a "snigga"

Is there such a thing? I found it while expanding an article on the Battle of Vistula Lagoon. This ship type is mentioned in some sources [1] (Polish). This Polish dictionary [2] says that it was a 15th century light sail ship used on the Baltic and suggests that the translation into English would be "snigga" and into German as "Schnick". Any idea? VolunteerMarek 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it derived from Longship#Snekkja? I grabbed a couple of more recent history books off my shelf (which touch on the nautical side) and they had no mention of similar names; I haven't seen "snigga" or "Schnick" before. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent half an hour googling last night with no success because I couldn't remember the spelling of "snekkja"! They look like they're all variant renderings of the same word to me... Shimgray | talk | 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found a couple of sources which mention that Bogoslawski's "On Merchant Shipbuilding In Russia" covers this subject; but I don't know where to get it, and if I did, I probably wouldn't be able to read it. What does the honourable Volunteer Marek think? bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, "snekkja" sounds very similar to "snaikka", which is one of the four ship types used in the Patrician series of computer games. The other three are crayer, cog and hulk (also described in other language versions as a holk). The game is set in the C13th and C14th, so presumably these were contemporary ship types. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential issue

...on Talk:Glossary of nautical terms#Chains. Vinithehat (talk · contribs) has decided that because he's not aware of definition, it must not exist, and his response that it was impeccably sourced to the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea was to say 'impeccably sourced my ass' and then remove it. I'd be grateful for further input if any other editors wish to stop by, to avoid this becoming just a one-on-one thing. Benea (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2p-worth added, warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Baling hook

Does anyone have one of these kicking around? We need a snapshot. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Exists as Longshoreman's hook. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Marine accident investigators

What is the Italian equivalent of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch in the UK please? Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Segreteria Permanente della Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi, I think? Haus^Talk 18:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, you've got one guess as to why I was asking. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • My pleasure. The "Permanent Secretary of" part may or may not be part of the organization's name. Haus^Talk 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh those guys are going to have to put up an English site soon, at least one dedicated to the Concordia incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FLC for List of ironclad warships of Germany needs attention

Hi all, the FLC for the above list has been languishing for the past two months. Might it be possible for a few editors to take a look and see if there are any issues that need to be addressed? The FLC page is here if you're interested. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Call for spotchecks

If anyone is able to assist in spotchecks on sources for the Featured Article Candidacy of HMS Temeraire (1798), please stop by and comment here. Benea (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship article at AfD

TSS Manx Maid (1962) is currently nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a snow keep . Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Original research and NC-SHIPS recommended formulations

Hello, I'm having a discussion over at WT:AFC on whether a ship class called "xyz class" is original research if the form requested is "xyz-class", and if using the WP:NC-SHIPS recommended form is original research if it recommends "xyz class ship type" if you can't find the exact phrase "xyz class ship type", but hits for the ship class include "xyz class" and "ship type" but not as a single set phrase, though occurring on the same source. What are your opinions? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not Original Research in the least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace avoidance

Comments re requested re a solution to the avoidance of whitespace in the various lists of shipwrecks covering 1939-44. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks#Avoiding whitespace in TOC, where your opinion is sought on the proposed solution. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Titanic

April 2012 will be the 100 year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in remembering/commemorating this event with an editathon maybe in Southampton? -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue

There is currently a discussion, and accompanying proposal, on handling of reused PD text in DYK submissions, here. Since many Wikiships articles are based on reused PD text, such as that from DANFS, the discussion should be of interest to Wikiships members. Gatoclass (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Scope exemption?

While not meeting the "100/100" scope criterion, I was wondering if this boat might be significant enough to sneak into the project? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is definitely notable: Per WP:NSPORT, circumnavigation of the North Pole seems roughly equivalent to having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Also WP:EFFECT, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable," i.e., others will also try this. And WP:GEOSCOPE, "By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world ... are presumed to be notable enough for an article." As for WP ships, we might consider this an event that's opening the way for larger vessels. Djembayz (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We need a higher level project... like how WPAviation works with WPAircraft... that's below WPTransport... to cover the science, technology, engineering of watercraft, use and practices of transport on/in water, facilities for their use, jobs for their use... WP:Marine, Riverine, Lacustrine Transportation ? 70.24.249.190 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades. Brad (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not in scope. Scope and notability are two different things as is constantly confusing them as one. Sailing project fits as tagged. Brad (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I was asking about scope, not notability. ;) I didn't realise there was a sailing project - that fits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Djembayz was the one talking about notability. I forgot to indent. Brad (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fish (ing boat) out of water

Fishing boat out of the water for repairs at Ulladulla, New South Wales

I should know the answer to this, but what's the name for the structure the fishing boat at right is in? Is this a slipway of some sort? The structure is next to the towns harbour and boats are lifted out of it on the platform this fishing trawler is sitting on. I'd like to know so I can complete categorising this photo on commons. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind is drydock. Brad (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess it is a species of "drydock."The term for a platform on rails upon which a vessel is pulled out of the water for dry work is marine railway. There are some large marine railways that handle ships of fair size, for example Colonna Marine Railway Corporation, though big ones require a sail in, block, pump dry drydock as in your link. Palmeira (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a marine railway, though it is somewhat difficult to tell since the base of the platform is obscured in detail. If it is a platform running on rails into the water so that boats and small ships can be secured and pulled out for work that would be the typical name. There are some detailed photos at Big Chute and Big Chute Marine Railway for comparison. Palmeira (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The white sign on the right reads "Vessel on slipway..." Haus^Talk 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

...as does the yellow sign on the left :o Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Always fun to do some checking! Since we have the place this may be the facility. Palmeira (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It could be a simple slipway, ramp with a wheeled platform, for such a small vessel. Slipway can also be applied to a marine railway. If you look closely between those two signs there appear to be rails. Palmeira (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing that it's in? I've generally known those as a "crib". They're either rubber tyred and roll down a concrete or masonry slipway, or older ones would be running on the rails of a marine railway or patent slip. The advantage of rubber tyred ones is that you can have more than one, and haul them away from the top of the slipway (more convenient to work on, more than one out of the water at a time). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for HMS Argus (I49); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the FAC for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging of Packet boat related articles pending since 2010

The merging of Packet boat related articles has been pending since 2010 see Talk:Packet boat. Teofilo talk 16:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ID needed

Please help ID this. What sort of boat is it?

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Suction dredgers? I can't think of many other reasons to have groups of hoses dangling over the side of the hull like that. There's some kind of overflow pipe from the hold on the flank of the nearest one, so there's a hold which fills with liquid cargo which you don't mind sloshing into the sea... bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thank you. They have been making land in the area. I've seen barges off in the distance spraying vile muck from huge hoses into areas enclosed by stones. It eventually makes new land. Maybe they weren't barges after all, but these boats. I thought it couldn't be because these hoses are so narrow, and the spray was just enormous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Those pumps aren't very big, nor is there any means to accurately spray muck long distances. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Okay. Well, I'd like to move the file to a better name because pump boat is a a whole different thing. Is it safe to say it's some sort of dredger? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Interesting puzzler. The question is being batted around at shipspotting.com courtesy of User:Tupsumato‎. I have doubts that it's a dredge (hull shape, capacity, size of hoses). Also, my guess is that it's not self-propelled - it doesn't have a mast for antennas/day-shapes/radar/signal lights, etc... Someone mentioned that it might be a sewage or water tender, which seems like a good possibility to me. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were doing regular transfers to other vessels, wouldn't it be festooned with fenders? (Or tyres, at least). I like the tender idea though. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, although I'm pretty sure I've seen tenders without fenders. After thinking about it, it occurred to me that the hoses would be awfully large for potable water or sewage - a cargo ship typically uses 2-1/2" fire hoses for potable water, and no self-respecting passenger ship would let these scows anywhere near them. Sewage typically goes through reinforced hard-rubber hoses that are about 3". Compared to the life ring, I'd say these hoses are about 12". My best guess at this point is that these boats started life as small (poorly designed) coastal tankers and now act as floating booster pumps for dredges along a pipeline similar to this animation. I think that the short hoses, lack of an actual dredging tool, and the vertical black marks on the side are clues. Maybe they tie up to mooring buoys? Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious indeed. Six of them, and several hoses each. Only things I can think of that use hose that size are vacuum hoses for sewage, or else concrete pumping. Given that it's construction-mad China, I wonder if they are for concrete? Quite nice bow lines for a "scow" too! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes! There's a good chance they're for cement. They've been pouring oodles of it in the area to make walls and such on the reclaimed land.

I will get out there in the next day or two and see if I can find someone to ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went back and took photos from the other side. There's a raft and rope to get to the boats. I was thinking about trying that to go and ask them. But, then I saw guard dogs on board. One was wearing a "Just eat them!" t-shirt.

I actually took a bunch of pics at the Haikou New Port today, and uploaded them here. I'm starting to like boats. Please were very friendly, and we waved to each other a lot.

Here's a nice ship with swirly cylinders on it. I thought you might like to see it: Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Guildlines

Where are the guidelines about the layout of ship, specifically submarine, articles? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there are specific guidelines, but I use the following basic structure -

• Infobox
• Lede
• Description
• History

although some edits swap the latter two around. If it's a U-boat you have in mind, take a look at the U-607 article that I wrote. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have usually swapped the latter two around, first explaining what has been done to the ship (concept, development, construction, naming) and what the ship has done (career), and then describing the ship itself (design). Often the ship's history is more interesting than its technical details. Of course if the design of the ship has greatly affected to its career, or the ship is primarily interesting from that point of view and has no "interesting" career, it might be useful to describe the technical details first. Tupsumato (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

History might be slightly broad -- I was hoping for someone to mention Background as in:

Lead

Background

Design

Operational history

That is what my impression of what the layout should be like, but I'm not sure. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would generally go with User:Sp33dyphil. The how and why of the building of the ships precedes how they were actually used (though a major mid-life refit might complicate the separation). By knowing why the ship was built and how it was equiopped for that task there is a better understanding of its actual use (or misuse) operationally. An outline of the use of the ships should already be in the lede. A similar structure is used by the WP:Aviation project with the section "Design and development" preceding "Operational use". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody create a guidelines page some nobody will have to ask the same question in the future? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a detailed guideline would be helpful; people would then start ritually rearranging articles to fit some procrustean bed. I'd rather ship articles had natural prose which followed what sources say, and the best way to do that may often vary between different ships. However, Infobox - Lede - Description - History looks like a reasonable rule of thumb. bobrayner (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to look at the ships sidebar up at the top of this page on the right side? All sort of info about tools and style etc are listed in the lower half. Brad (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi, I've nominated List of Ohio class submarines for A-class review here. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ROV & AUV - external discussion

Please comment, thank you. --Zerosei (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a notability guide for ships? Both civilian/military? --Zerosei (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot lately, for example here. We follow the Wikipedia general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and (usually) use 100 feet/100 tons as the project scope. Tupsumato (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

USS Chicago (CA-136) talk page templates

USS Chicago (CA-136) was built in Philadelphia and converted into a guided missile cruiser in San Francisco. Three questions about templates on the talk page. First, Pennsylvania is an appropriate template, since the ship was built there, and this is the standard practice with US Navy ships in Wikipedia. Secondly, currently there is a Chicago template, but I would say this should be removed. Very few US Navy ships named for cities or states have a template for their namesakes, unless, of course, they were also built there. Third, in the case of Chicago being rebuilt in San Francisco, there could be a case made to put a California template on the talk page, but I am unsure about that idea.

Please comment on the proper templates for US Navy ships for my guidance. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never paid much attention to other projects that decided to tag a ship article. I consider it that project's issue to decide whether or not it should be tagged. If you're determined to solve those problems it would be better answered on the Chicago project page. Brad (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago is just one example among many ship article talk pages I am updating, all of which are ships built in Pennsylvania, so the Chicago project opinion would be useless to me. Perhaps another ship project editor will respond here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that project tagging should be done by someone who is an active member of the particular project. Projects determine their own scope, within reason.Dankarl (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Project tagging can be done by any editor. As long as it's not obviously disruptive tagging there shouldn't be a problem. Whether or not a tag is correct is for members of the particular WP to decide. For instance, Costa Concordia was only tagged with WP:SHIPS this morning. I added WP:SHIPWRECKS (obvious reasons) and WP:ITALY (built there, wrecked there) tags. Both tags are entirely appropriate for the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work Mjroots (talk on Costa Concordia talk page, and I agree with your comments on tagging. I am still looking for guidance on my original three questions above. Note that the questions relate to Military History, Ships, and Pennsylvania, so three projects are involved. I am a member of Pennsylvania project, and for the editing I have done, I could easily be a member of Military History and Ships, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A shufti at the talkpage history shows that the Chicago project was a "refinement" of a Project Illinois tag, the latter having been added by a bot back in '07. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that 'name association' city or state projects should be tagged, because apart from the common name (because the USN had to call it something) and the occasional ceremony recognising the common name, I'd doubt there's much of an association. I'm indifferent on the 'state of construction' issue (if that's standard for USN vessels, may as well keep it up), but I'm not sure if the modification is strong enough reason for a project tag. Apart from construction, I think the only really strong reason to tag a ship with a state/city tag would be if the ship ended up in their boundaries as a museum ship or shipwreck. Mileage may vary disclaimer: I work with Royal Australian Navy ship articles (which usually don't project-tag for builder, and if they did, {{WP Australia}} is already present as the nation-operator). -- saberwyn 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, I add tags for any and all projects regardless of whether or not I'm a member, but I don't assess articles for WikiProjects I'm not a member of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the city/state for which the ship is named is sentimentally attached to the ship, I don't see why it wouldn't fall under the city/state's wikiproject's purview. However, since naval ships serve a country's navy, it should seem to me that the most likely tag would be the country tag. As some project seem to tag namesakes, then that's their decision as well. WPSHIPS isn't the master wikiproject that controls other ones.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I add tags for all applicable projects, but for some projects like MILHIST I leave the class to the members. For ships, I completed hundreds of Pennsylvania built US Navy ship talk pages, adding SHIPWRECK where applicable (a lot of WW II ships were wrecked), and I removed namesake templates a fair number of times, but left some as they were. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania scholarship deadline Feb. 12 / Ship photos Scan-a-Thon?

Ahoy mates, want to point out that scholarships are available for Wikimania 2012 in Washington, DC, deadline Feb. 12. There are zillions of ship photos (especially warships!) at the nearby National Archives waiting for you to scan them in, so come on down for Wikimania and let's have a nautical Scan-a-thon! Djembayz (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with this! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

S*d the warships, get the cargo ships scanned! Would help but am too far away . Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just come on down, MJ, whenever you get a chance, and same for other WP SHIPS fans! We have a friendly and active group here in DC, you'll enjoy it. There's *plenty* for ship lovers to scan and research here.Djembayz (talk)

SS Port Nicholson sunk 1942

has been in the news recently. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - plenty of info about. Uboat.net, Tyne built ships, Lloyd's Register 1930 (details of refrigeration machinery), Lloyd's Register 1933 (dimensions, engine details etc), Lloyd's Register 1934 (change of Code Letters), BBC story on discovery. I would do it myself but am otherwise engaged at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?58549 Kittybrewster ☎ 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Related to the Port Nicholson is this interesting article - Blue Baron (shipwreck). Given what we know now it would seem the salvage company in question was lying through their teeth for much of what they said at the time, including the identity and location of the shipwreck. Perhaps a merge? Benea (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Personal communication" as a reference

Would someone please look at the last edit of Jeanie Johnston [3] I would explain that <ref>{{Personal communication, Aiseanna Mara Teoranta}}</ref> is not acceptable, but in the light of the reason given for the changes: (I reverted some of user Lugnad's changes, as he or she deleted withouth comment several unfavourable, but researched and sourced facts about the ship. Also fixed some typos.) It might be better received from someone other than I. Just to add, I have no idea what changes of mine are being referred to. Thanks Lugnad (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A "personal communication" is original research and should not be used. Otherwise I believe the last editor was mistaken; I see no evidence that you removed anything. Brad (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

References have to be published and accessible to meet Wikipedia policies (WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:VERIFY). There is no way for others to verify a "Personal communication" to somebody else. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - but - I hoped that someone would explain that to the other editor and remove the original research. Lugnad (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, yes. I tagged the Personal communication "reference" in that article for starters. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ta very Lugnad (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam engine indicators - icebreaker Tarmo

Could someone provide me with more information on what exactly these engine indicators of Finnish icebreaker Tarmo (1907) are? Old pressure gauges? MKFI (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They're engine indicators. We used to have a better article on this, but it was deleted. "Dobbie McInnies" is a good search term too.

They measure pressure, but instead of being a simple display gauge they're a recording graph plotter of pressure vs. volume. "Volume" is derived from the piston position - as the cylinder is cylindrical, linear distance moved is proportional to volume. The indicator is a cylindrical drum that has paper wrapped around it. Pressure moves a pen up and down outside the cylinder, linear movement rotates the cylinder and draws the abscissa, the other axis on the graph. For a compound engine, there would be one indicator for each cylinder - they may even be different instruments, with different pressure ranges.

Regular use of indicators was a feature of a well-run engine room, whether it was a ship or a power station. They're of most importance for designing engines and their initial setting of the valvegear, but they also provide an in-service measure of performance and "tuning". This could include detecting, and repairing, errors or mis-adjustments of valve setting. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for List of Ohio class submarines

Hi, I've nominated List of Ohio class submarines for Featured List status; could anybody with time please comment on the FLC? Thank you --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted category

Category:Maritime incidents in 2012 has just been deleted as a 'G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban'. Given that this category is legitimate, useful, in keeping with our structure, and despite only being February already contained half a dozen articles, can it be recreated? Benea (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It can, and it has been. I've asked the admin to revert all deletions of the category. I understand the reasoning behind the deletion, but the correct course of action here was deletion and re-creation by a non-banned editor. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Suamico class templates

I always find neat things to fix :) Can anyone help sort out what looks to be like redundant templates here? I'm not sure which one would be more helpful or what corrections they might need. The first one was the most recently created template and looks more comprehensive but has a bad template name. The second one appears to be the original template. Brad (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC) {{Suamico-class oilers}}

I'd say keep the first one and just move it. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first template isn't making much sense. It calls itself a Suamico-class template but goes on to list Escambia-class ships as well. (WTF?) Escambia should have its own template, yes? I've yet to figure out why the SE-A3 ships are on that template too. Brad (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. there is one for Escambia Brad (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these oilers are confusing. I found one where two entirely different classes had the same class name and a slightly different ship type (legitimately), and the Indians have one where the same name and type was for two different classes (at different time periods)...auxiliaries are a sure source of gray hairs! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that the creator of the first template may have been trying to eliminate confusion but in that manner only made it worse. Brad (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much settles the question here. The first template above does nothing but repeat three other templates. Add to that its confusing name and listings, I think a deletion nomination is in order. Brad (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

lol.. ok I get it now. Supposedly the Escambia class was considered a subclass of the Suamico class. Yet I only see the Escambia class oiler article claiming They were very similar to the Suamico class (of which they are sometimes accounted a subclass) I'd like to see a more hearty claim than that along with refs. Brad (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Solicitr (talk · contribs) to comment here. The templates were created by that user. If no response soon I'll put the template up for deletion. Brad (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Anne (1799 ship)

Does anyone with a knowledge of ships captured in 18th century, posssibly idenitfy when Anne was captured? Possibly a Spanish or French vessel known as Luz St Anne or Luz St Anna. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lugnad (talk · contribs) is an expert in that realm - he's on holiday at the moment but says he has some information to add. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will await Lugnad's return. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Even then I may not have any insight as to her history. However Anne is important in the aftermath of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The "convicts" were (mainly) members of the Society of United Irishmen. One of them, Philip Cunningham of Tipperary, went on to lead the Castle Hill convict rebellion. Lugnad (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, a number of ship articles that I have created recently, have links to the rebellion of 1798. I will add the references for further reading. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

News of the paying of salvage money for the 'recapture' of the 'Nostra Senora da Luzet Santa Anna' by the 'Dover and Cecilia transports' was posted on 6 December 1799. That might give some indication of the rough time period. Benea (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks once again to Benea. Newm30 (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cornwallis

Could someone advise whether HMS Cornwallis is the Marquis Cornwallis built in 1789, India and around 654 tons? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Colledge, yes, but bm given at 1388, and date of build not given. Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8., p. 80. Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Colledge only confirms that HMS Cornwallis was previously the EIC's Marquis Cornwallis. Winfield has her built c. 1800/1801, but confirms a considerably larger tonnage of 1,387 57/94. An earlier East Indiaman named Marquis Cornwallis, of 654 tons, is listed as in service prior to 1800 however. HMS Cornwallis is therefore not the Marquis Cornwallis of 1789, but a later build of the same name. Benea (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Kablammo and Benea. Much appreciated. Newm30 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

New linear geolocationing system

Over at Wikiproject:Highways we've discovered a nifty way of displaying data onto mapping services that I believe will be a large benefit to your project. By using google earth, qgis, or similar software, you can draw lines onto the globe. These can be saved as a kml file, and the contents of that kml file can be used to, in place of or alongside the current {{coord}} system, display a shape or line on the Earth. I believe this group can benefit greatly from this as it can be used to trace the course of a ship when known or following a disaster.

We're still trying to work out the finer details on how to proceed with this new discovery, so if anybody is interested check out the talk page of WikiProject Highways. Cheers, - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It took a while for me to make heads-or-tails of this. For a concrete example, see Oklahoma_State_Highway_82#External_links and click "view on google maps", for example. Haus^Talk 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the tip about this, I'm not sure it would be the best idea to include this type of thing in ship articles. With a highway, one can point to a map and say for sure that the GPS track aligns with reality. For ships, we would probably only have a handful of coordinates which would not make for an accurate track. The resulting track would be misleading. I hope that makes sense. —Diiscool (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. It was the same idea that the highway project was facing with a single set of coordinates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above, should it ever become viable, should not be used "in place of… the current {{coord}} system", since it offers none of the functionality of that template, for identifying, locating, and producing KML (etc) of points of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Voyages of Christopher Columbus

I think there's some limited use for this type of functionality. No map can ever be fully accurate due to the map–territory relation, and no record of a trip can ever be fully accurate due to the }observer effect, among other things. However maps like the one to the right can sometimes be useful in illustrating a voyage, if the appropriate qualifications are made.

There are a number of places this could be useful that lay just outside of this project's scope, for example Kiel Canal, Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormuz, Panama Canal, etc... Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The observer effect you say? So what was effected by the navigational observations of mariners? When they used the stars to navigate did the action of their observing change the position of the Earth or of the stars? And when they used the Sun to navigate was it the Sun or the Earth which changed their orbit? And if the effect was big enough to mean drawing a line through their journey is impossible then how did they reach their destinations? And of course if every marine voyage should change the orbits of the stars then, with so many individual navigational observations having been made over the last centuries, why aren't all the stars in a different order by now? Weakopedia (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of wandering off topic - it's pretty easy to find and record a good approximation of a position. Finding an exact position or recording an exact position would be a pretty good trick, indeed. Haus^Talk 05:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet one which mariners, pilots and people walking down the road manage to achieve every day. Have you really misunderstood the idea of the observer effect so much? Navigating a ship is not measured in terms of light wavelengths, it is on a scale that isn't bothered by the observer effect. Defending your misapplication of scientific terms to current arguments is not off topic you know, its how we arrive at consensus and you at an education. Weakopedia (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a position with no error and plot it on a map with no error, I'll happily eat my words. Haus^Talk 18:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll find your position - right in front of the computer. How on earth did you manage to navigate your way back to the same computer since plotting positions is in your mind impossible? But anyway, since you obviously have no clue about the observer effect or the accuracy needed for navigation I shall not bother you any more about it, I am sure you have enough trouble navigating your way through life without any more distractions. Weakopedia (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

It might interest the project that {{Ship infobox request}} has been nominated for merging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the above at the discussion. This template still has a valuable use for this project. More interest in the TfD is needed by project members. Brad (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeanie Deans (ships)

On Jeanie Deans (ships) I'm rather stumped on what to do with this article. It really should be a DAB page but there's other research that has been done on ships that don't currently have their own article. I don't want to just wipe away the research but a DAB page shouldn't have citations and look like an article. Brad (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule which requires an article on multiple ships to become a dab and follow the various strictures that we apply to disambiguation pages? I freely admit that the article looks a slightly awkward, but we have fragments of sourced content (though it could be better sourced) which seem to work well collected together on that page... unless/until somebody decides to delete or to expand into standalone articles, I think it may be better to let the current structure remain. bobrayner (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The page could be tagged with {{shipindex}} with appropriate redlinks created. There are some dablinks which need sorting and a few minor MOS issues, but overall the page is serving a purpose, giving stub quality information on four ships and a shipwreck. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MS/MV Explorer

We now have two similarly titled articles - MS Explorer and MV Explorer - about different ships. In line with WP:NC-S, I propose that MS Explorer becomes a redirect to MV Explorer, which will become a shipindex page. The article currently at MS Explorer is moved to MV Explorer (1969) and the article currently at MV Explorer is moved to MV Explorer (2001). Any objections / better ideas? Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I think we should do something for the current prefix chaos — I have received comments about using a wrong prefix (MS instead of MV, or vice versa) in an article, although they mean essentially the same thing. Also, although I have done it as well, it feels stupid when ship articles are created with the prefix although often there is no need to disambiguate the name from non-ship articles. Perhaps we could drop them... Tupsumato (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to drop them. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of personal preference for MV/MS. Not a big problem as the search engine will generally find the ship for you. I'm against the dropping of ship prefixes. It's sometimes useful - SS Foo and MV Foo, for instance. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course prefixes can be useful in many cases, but sometimes you have people debating whether the article title should be MS Oasis of the Seas or MV Oasis of the Seas even though simply Oasis of the Seas would do because there's no article about anything called "Oasis of the Seas" except the ship. Also, prefixes are sometimes used incorrectly for ships that generally don't use them — for example I've seen icebreaker articles with "MS" or "SS" prefix. Also², some tanker articles have "MT" as a prefix while some do not, or use MS/MV instead... There's no order!
Anyway, it's not a major issue, and as we work on new articles, we can always make the decision to not to use a prefix in the article name if there's no "need" to use it. For example the article about Sevmorput has no "NS" prefix as there is only one Sevmorput. Perhaps, once we have covered all ships that have ever been, we can discuss about renaming existing ship articles. Until then it's just a minor issue that can be solved case-by-case basis.
As for your case, I support the MS/MV prefix as there are many things named Explorer out there. If the name was something more special, like Dat explorin' boat, we could do with just the years. Tupsumato (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Explorer (disambiguation) has a section on ships, perhaps the best option would be to just redirect the un-dabbed names there instead of creating a redundant index. If that's what we do, the dab page will of course have to be updated (it only has one of the ships listed currently). Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one think that dropping the prefixes is a terrible idea, prefixes makes it much clearer that we're dealing with ships. As the the MS/MV issue, I personally prefer MS, but don't criticize people who use MV. Manxruler (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the MS/MV (and other prefixes) can be helpful when there are multiple subjects with basically the same name - Explorer is a great example - but they're not true disambiguators as the average reader won't really know the difference or know what to look for (most of all, readers won't know wikipedia's internal naming conventions). So, we still need to pay attention to dab pages and hatnotes &c. It's very easy for a regular editor to think "Well, I know which article goes where"; but the average reader does not. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the prefixes can be useful and I feel that adding the year to the article title is perfectly acceptable. In the case of MV Explorer the ship is consistently called "MV Explorer" throughout the cited literature (except MarineTraffic.com) which leads me to believe that its common name, at least to those responsible for the ship, is MV Explorer. As the creator of the most recent iteration of that article, I apologize for causing any confusion. I thank Mjroots for helping to sort things out and for starting this discussion. —Diiscool (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one welcome our prefix overlordssupport the prefixes as being on the articles (of course there should be redirects from the "simple" titles too!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MS Explorer has an extensive hatnote, about Microsoft products (MS), so if anything, MS Explorer should become a disambiguation page, and not a shipindex; or it should be redirected to the entire Explorer (disambiguation) and not just the ship section. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Tupsumato (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd not forgotten about Microsoft Explorer, that can be covered by a hatnote on the shipindex page in the same way that it is covered in the MS Explorer ship article. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The above proposed moves have been done. I've fixed the major alterations to wikilinks (i.e. those in articles) too. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lexington-class carrier templates

I've started a discussion to delete them and their category at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_11#Lexington-class_carrier_templates as these templates are no longer used in the relevant articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion

It may interest the project that {{Lada class submarine}} has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And {{Ocean Village ships}} Brad (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary now open

The featured article candidacy for HMS Queen Mary is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Ibuki class cruisers

The Ibuki class heavy cruisers were the last cruisers begun by the Imperial Japanese Navy. Two were laid down, but only one was launched and was supposed to be converted into a light aircraft carrier, but construction was halted late in the war. Right now there's a stub for the lead ship that provides data as a cruiser and as a carrier, but I was wondering if it would be better to create a class article separately that would be generally restricted to the design as a cruiser while the existing ship article would briefly cover that info, but go into detail about the carrier conversion. Alternately, we could rename the individual ship article into the class article and cover both in detail. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer your first option, Ibuki class carrier + Ibuki aircraft carrier. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I could see it go either way - I don't generally like articles for unfinished ships when a class article could adequately incorporate the material, but in some cases, especially when the ship was nearly completed, it can be warranted. That may be the case here. I suppose it depends on how long the two articles will be, once finished. For an example, German cruiser Seydlitz follows the former model, for a separate article for the unfinished cruiser conversion and one on the class. Parsecboy (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:''Suamico''-class oilers

Template:''Suamico''-class oilers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carnival / Fantasy templates

Is there a need for two templates listing the same class and same ships? It would appear that the fantasy class template is not needed considering that the Carnival template is much more complete. Brad (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Fantasy class}}

And now Dream class. Brad (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) {{Dream class}}

Concordia class.....Pink?! Brad (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT then! Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is what I've been doing quite often recently. Not much sense in correcting colors on a template that has dubious usage. Brad (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've unpinked it. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Concordia class}}

Destiny class. Brad (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC) {{Destiny class}}

My first reaction is to keep the "Concordia class" template, as it includes Costa Cruises operated ships. The others could probably be safely merged into the overall Carnival template. -- saberwyn 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and there is a need for separate templates. At the moment, there is duplication because the ships are relatively new and in service with Carnival Cruise Line. Thinking longer term, those ships will be sold to different owners, renamed, reflagged etc. Over time, the template would then develop in a similar way to others, such as the Costa Cruise and Seatruck Ships templates. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that the redundant templates will hang around for years because they might be needed then? Not logical. Brad (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - rework the Carnival Cruise Line template to remove the split by ship classes and rework it similar to the Costa Cruises and Seatruck Ships templates. That way, the need for the shipping line and ship class templates is demonstrated. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

MSC / Musica templates

I'm whistling while I work. Brad (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Caribbean template does things right. One template all inclusive. Brad (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is fine all the time that all ships in a particular class are operated by the same operator and still in service. Looking at the Costa Concordia class, already there is a ship out of service and which may be scrapped due to being uneconomic to repair. This is why I think that a template for the operator and a separate template for the individual ship class is justifiable and sustainable. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical tide times

Hi, does anyone have any inkling how to find tide times for Cape Agulhas, South Africa, on 9 March 1766...? No worries if not, but maybe you could point me to someone who does? Thanks. :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cape Agulhas in 1766? Are you writing about the Meermin, by any chance?

There could be two ways of setting about it, in principle; find tide tables (which give a pretty good prediction of tides) or find a record of actual tides (which could vary slightly due to wind &c). The latter is probably a serious challenge; but the former is made much easier by the fact that tide tables were widely published, and you could use a tide table for a different location and then apply a suitable adjustment - unless you need exceptional accuracy. So, the first step is to find an almanac for 1766. No? bobrayner (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha yep! Sorry, didn't mean to be cryptic – just, lots going on for me today, including IRL! ;o) Great tip, but, there doesn't seem to be much online that I can get to, any further thoughts…? Although I may be missing something obvious, er, it's happened before! Cheers. :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, this would have been perfect but it was first published in 1766 with tables for 1767. Before Maskelyne became astronomer-royal he produced "The British Mariner's Guide" in 1763 which probably contains tables that we could use for this purpose but I haven't found a copy yet. My Dutch isn't good enough to search for dutch-language almanacs. Perhaps an astronomy geek could use modern tools to hindcast the position of the moon on that date; if that's accurate it should be sufficient to calculate tide times. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that one and thought unprintable things! One year too late… Ok thanks for looking – I tried looking for Dutch but quickly decided it was beyond me, too. I asked about this at WikiProject Moon too, fingers crossed and thanks everso for the thoughts. :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Presuming [4] is accurate...

Begin civil twilight: 04:09

Sunrise: 04:34

Sun transit: 10:51

Sunset: 17:07

End civil twilight: 17:32

Moonset: 15:41 on preceding day

Moonrise: 02:38

Moon transit: 09:32

Moonset: 16:14

Moonrise: 03:49 on following day

Phase of the Moon on 9 March: Waning crescent with 3% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 10 March 1766 at 23:11 Universal Time.

All those are for Cape Agulhas, in Universal Time (UT). bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Top tip - at a given location, the time of HW Springs is the same (at least, during an given epoch) every time it occurs (see Why do Spring High Tides always seem to occur at the same time of day?). Therefore, if your table for 1767 tells you the time of HW Springs for a given period near to your date for 1766, and you know the phase of the moon for the date you want, then you've got a pretty good idea of the 1766 details, if you follow my drift. Be warned about tidal predictions (astronomical should be fine) going back 250 years - the errors could be (probably are) huge. Also be warned that the accuracy of your 1767 tide tables are likely to be poor in any case. Furthermore, be sure you know whether you're in the Gregorian or Julian Calendar. Why, incidentally, do you want to know? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff! I want to know because an expert source leads us to believe that captive Malagasy involved in the Meermin slave mutiny were assisted from ship to shore by Dutch volunteers via a rope at low tide on 9 March 1766. Determining the state of the tide this way for use in the article would be OR; but Pesky is planning to create an illustration of the event which she would release to Commons, she wants to get the time of day right, and that would be fine for the article – I think! :o) Well, are we sure that the accuracy of a 1767 tide table would be poor…? The Dutch seem to have adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century, so I reckon that's ok. Ok, stupid question time – if the above details for Cape Agulhas are correct for [Gregorian] 9 March 1766, when would there have been a low tide in daylight hours…? TBH, thinking about springs is a bit beyond me, but it would be an interesting detail if one occurred on the day. Really grateful for the time and thought! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The tidal regime at Cape Agulhas is semi-diurnal, with a period of about 12.5 hours. There were 12.5 hours of daylight, according to bobraynor, so either the daylight period began and ended with a low tide, or there was one somewhere within the daylight period. Modern tide tables for much of the world (not including Europe, North America and South Africa, by the way) are not great, and all tide tables rely upon accurate observations over a suitable time frame for good accuracy. Having said that, the times of high and low water are quite easy to pin down - it's the heights that are the harder bit. I'd be fairly doubtful about any Dutch tide tables for South Africa in the 18th century - if any exist. I can't see that you've found any yet, just the Nautical Almanac (ie astronomical tables) for 1767. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• 21 March 2012 will have a waning crescent moon illuminated at 2% (ie just like 9 March 1766). Try [5] for a very comprehensive prediction suite. LW on that day will be at 0905 and 2110 (UTC+2). I've no idea what time zone they would have kept at Cape Agulhas in the 18th century, but local noon (ie merpass) would be at about 12:45 (UTC+2), suggesting that LW happens in 2012 at this phase of the moon at about 0830 solar time. All this simply assume that 250 years of precession, and any other long-term effects, can be ignored. I'm reasonably sure that would be a mistake, but I don't have any idea of the size of the potential error. If you can find a single time of high water anywhere in the world for a given date in the 18th century, then we can quantify the error with some certainty, though. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've had a quick look at London Bridge tides, and it seems that in May 1687 HW springs fell at about 15:00 (time zone unknown, but solar time is very close to GMT) - see Tides: a scientific history, by David Edgar Cartwright, p.22. In May 2012 ([6]) HW springs will fall at 1441 GMT. Frankly I'm surprised at just how close these figures are, and while it's hardly a fully justified piece of reasoning, and accepting there may be errors in my method, I'm fairly confident that low water on 9 March 1766 at Cape Agulhas was round about 0830 local. Does that help? 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, good going! I've no idea about local time in 1766 either, not sure how one would go about establishing that: presumably it was calculated like navigation, from solar info, e.g. solstice in this instance? (really showing my ignorance of all this now!) Hmm. Looking at this may have been a bad idea for me, a little information being a dangerous thing, ;op but it made me wonder if, from bobrayner's info, there were low tides at about 07:30 & 20:00 on 9 March 1766: now you suggest an hour later! (maybe it's just that I forgot daylight saving, or something? I calculated from a modern timing) Sounds close enough for me, for the purposes of an imaginative illustration? Even if that's an hour or two out either way, it would suggest there was no chance to retrieve the Malagasy from the ship in daylight on the day that they surrendered (9 March), so it would more likely have happened around 09:30 the following morning…? It would've taken a couple of hours maybe, as there were 53 Malagasy to bring ashore. Don't want to speak too soon, but I get the feeling this is close to being wrapped up! :o) Nortonius (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• As for establishing local time, I'd suggest that they waited for the sun to get to the zenith, said "righty ho, then, that's noon" and set the town clock accordingly, when they felt like it. To be honest, that's how the Royal Navy did it (with some more ceremony, obviously) until for at least another century - but there's another story. Such a "local time" would accord closely with solar time, but it's impossible to say exactly how much difference there would be - less than half an hour, maybe much less, in all probability, and changing on a daily basis.
• I'm not completely certain what you did to get 07:30 and 20:00 as times, but if you used UTC data, then these times would be in UTC. My workings give 07:05 UTC and 19:10 UTC. Pretty close.
• Having read the account in Meermin slave mutiny of how the rescue was attempted, I'd say it's just as likely, perhaps more so, that the actual rescue happened at the second low water at 2030 solar time, or about 1915 UTC, by which time it would have been properly dark. Nevertheless, the preparations would have been completed during the day, and the rescue attempted when the tide was right. There doesn't seem to be enough time for the surrender arrangements, the delivery of the news, the worsening of the weather and the preparation of the gear before 08:30. Furthermore, the building of a fire to warm the Malagasy in South Africa in March does rather suggest that it was cold - which fits with it being dark, if you ask me. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is all very interesting! If the low tide times were at the beginning and end of the day, it makes it a bit problematical from an artist's point of view; do I have them starting the rescue early in the day (with a potential early sunlight in the background, behind the ship, as we'd be looking east from Struisbaai), or beginning it in virtual darkness and working into the night (very hard to produce a picture....). If it had been me doing the rescuing, I'd have gone for the morning one, just to ensure that there was sufficient light to complete the procedure. Not easy doing that in darkness, I'd have thought. Warming them at the fire could just as easily be to get over the ship-to-shore immersion in the sea (though early March down in the Cape area is a bit like early September around the UK coast, so not too dreadful, sea-temperature-wise). Without artificial light, of course (no handy Air-Sea Rescue helicopters with floodlights!) it could be pretty darned hard to effect a rescue in the dark. Hmmmm. Having the Meermin against a sunrise (ish) would be good to do from an artistic standpoint; having her against a dark sky would leave us with not a great deal to see. If I hadn't got the rescue picture in my head, I'd just do the ship in any-old-daylight; it's just that the rescue pic would make a really nice one, nobody's done it before (to the best of my knowledge), it actually illustrates a historic event rather than just a historic ship, and so on. I shall have to think! Pesky (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's a tidal range of about 1.3m at the time we're talking about, which means that (for example) you'd be looking at a height of 0.8m at sunset, and 0.4m by LW. If we're to assume that the tidal height itself isn't the issue so much as the reduction in the surf zone caused by the receding tide, then a rescue at sunset may be both theoretically possible and artistically attractive. Good luck ... 79.77.226.51 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(edit conflict - darn!) The following information is provided for Struisbaai (longitude E34.8, latitude S20.1):

Sunday 9 March 1766	Universal Time + 2h
SUN
Begin civil twilight	05:19
Sunrise	05:42
Sun transit	11:52
Sunset	18:01
End civil twilight	18:23
MOON
Moonset	16:16

Phase of the Moon on 9 March: waning crescent with 3% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 11 March 1766 at 01:11(Universal Time + 2h).

That's the info I got from the one-day site for Struisbaai. Did I do something wrongly? Pesky (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Hmm. Sunset won't work; from Struisbaai we're looking eastwards, into the darkness! Sunrise works ok. Low tide about two to three hours after sunrise will give me the angle of the sunlight, anyway. Pesky (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... These times don't look right, and they don't match bobraynor's, given above, for which sunset would by 17:07 (UTC) or 19:07 (UTC+2). 79.77.226.51 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And on checking, that's because you've got your eastings and southings the wrong way round - S34°.8 E20°.1 (not E34.8 S20.1). 79.77.226.51 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may not be quite finished, we'll see, but I just wanted to say a big thank you for the time, effort and thought that everyone concerned has put into it! :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gah, blech about Eastings and Southings ... I stupidly assumed that Google maps would have them in the usual order when I got them. Anyway, I can kinda "see" where the sun should be relative to the ship and the rescuers, so that's OK. Pesky (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, bother! Except that, in the first / second week of March, it should be darned close to equinoctial timings for sunrise and sunset, surely? Sunrise at 04:anything would indicate a date nearer to December, wouldn't it? Why would it be far off what one would expect? For example, this year sunrise on 9th March will be 06:41 (according to this). Pesky (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it be because SA is UTC + 2 hours, as indicated above? So, SA sunrise on 09.03.2012 at 06:41 SAST (South Africa Standard Time) is at 04:41 UTC…? Nortonius (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. But are we clear about which day the "rescue" happened? I'm inclined to agree with 79.77.226.51's suggestion above that it could have happened around sunset on 9 March…? If so, I see a scene lit from behind by the beautiful, golden rays of sunset!

It's local time, though, that we're looking at; eqinox and thereabouts, sunrise and sunset are around 06:00 and 18:00, local time. 12 hours with sun, 12 hours without it. And remember that Struisbaai faces eastwards, so the sun would be behind the land, and the sunset with it, and we'd be looking eastwards towards the Meermin and the darkness ... and if the low tide were about 08:30 and 20:30, with the sunset version, there would be no sign of it at low tide, it would have gone and we'd be in darkness (antoher reason why I think the morning low-tide would have been a more likely time to effect the retrieval / rescue of the Malagasy). With regard to tides, sunsets and sunrises, it doesn't much matter if it was 9th March or 10th March when they were brought ashore; water and light are similar on all those days around then. Adding: I can't produce a rescue picture in total darkness (other than to do total artistic licence and have nothing but pitch darkness, a few shadowy shapes, and the light of flaming torches here and there, lol!); for a morning rescue at low tide the sun would be about half way up the sky, in the north-east. Though it'sll be behind a cloud, as I'm not good at convincing representations of the sun itself ... Pesky (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, local time around those times for sunrise and sunset. Not sure why sunset's a problem for your painting…? There's loads of over-the-shoulder sunlight e.g. here, imagine the shoreline in the foreground flipped horizontally, and "our ship" where the cliff is…? (and landscape layout instead of portrait, obv!) Thing is, from what 79.77.226.51 says above (if I understand correctly…?) the water wouldn't have been too deep in the "surf zone" for our (ig)noble volunteers who were swimmers anyway, and they had their rope? Wouldn't there have been pressure on to get Malagasy off the ship ASAP, so, go before dark, at lowest possible tide…? According to this calculator (which I think we're probably all familiar with by now lol!), sunset at Struisbaai on 9 March 1766 was at 19:06, really not very much earlier than our guesstimated low tide… Any use, or am I just being annoying? :os Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nortonius, dear heart, remember that you're dealing with an HFA-obsessive here! Does anyone know what height the land is, on that bit of coast ...? How far out would the land-shadow reach? (rofl!) Hmmmm, I think, all things considered, that I;d rather go for the morning one. It gets dark quite quickly after sunset (and that one's before it's set, and looking westwards ...). Pesky (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened to artistic licence, facing east? ;op The lurking HFA in me says sunsetsunsetsunset! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, but ... look at the place by daylight! Wow! Low tide, loads of white sand, bluey-green sea .... just wow! Pesky (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fantastic looking place for such a tragedy – but look, no land shadow at sunset! ;op See you there…? lol Nortonius (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could persuade me that there was any degree of sunlight at all on the scene, at low tide two and a half hours after sunset, possibly ... ;P Pesky (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

But we could meet on the beach a little before the sun goes down, admiring how the falling tide steadily reveals more and more of the shoreline in the shimmering, golden light of early evening…? ;op Nortonius (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if you're paying for our fares and providing the Champagne, m'dear ;P Pesky (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn it – soz, I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth...! ;op Nortonius (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this for an idea? It's getting towards dusk, the preparations for the rescue are almost finished, but the surf is still up and the tide is ebbing. You can see the ship, the rescuers, the Malagasy stuck on the ship and Struisbaai - and you get the tension of "will the rescue work, or will they all die?". A couple of intrepid swimmers are trying their luck, although it's obviously still very rough. Just an idea. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

…but an excellent one, IMHO! :o) Nortonius (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek! I don;t know if I;m up to generating artistic tension in any way which will work at the required distances ... it's not as if I can run it to the theme tune from Jaws, or something. I'm seeing more of the ship, laying slightly over to her port side (she's grounded on a sandbank, remember, and the tide's tight out); a rope, with people swimming and arm-over-arming along it to (and from) the ship; one man reaching up out of the water at the ship end of the rope, to take a Malagasy child from the outstretched arms of another man on the ship, a man fighting his way back trhough the surf (maybe with a wave just broken over him?) with a nother Malagasy child piggy-back on his back ... and enough light to see all this by. I think I can get the idea of drenched rescuers, surf, keeling-over ship, and so on ... anyhoo, that's what I've been "seeing", so far. Pesky (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Pesky, it sounds to me like you've got good ideas right there; and, given the lack of precision in the sources over such things as the time of day vs. the thoughts above on this page, I think you have licence to just represent the event as best you can. I was thinking how the ship being grounded must've added to the general discomfort horror of the situation; and, remember that one of the Meermin's masts was cut down! Annoyingly no-one says which mast, but since this was done to "balance" the ship, I think we're free to assume it was the biggest and heaviest one, nearest the middle of the ship…? Above all, have fun with the picture! :o) Nortonius (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Yes, I "saw" it as being the middle one, as well! I tell you what would be really darned spooky, though ... if she ended up being "found" in the precise location, compared to shore, that I'm seeing her ... Pesky (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[cue Twilight Zone theme] ;o) I've never been on a ship that's become grounded, but I've been on a yacht while she was grounding at sea, it was a truly horrible feeling, and the sense of relief when she came free again was, well, huge... On a (comparatively) big ship like the Meermin would've been a bad place to be, even after grounding; I imagine her lurching around her point(s) of contact with the bottom, as the waves roll in... Nortonius (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have had accidentally grounded smaller craft During a grounding - after the moment of impact - I doubt that most actual forces felt by people aboard the ship would have had greater magnitudes than experienced during normal sailing. When grounded, the ship is no longer free to move with the waves as it once did; solid rock and sand are pretty good dampers. Rather, the ship's movements would have been different. And when you've been aboard a ship for a few days you get used to it; the sudden change in how the ship moves, combined with the knowledge that something is wrong (and the new noises you certainly weren't hearing before), is likely to be quite unsettling even if the forces felt at any moment aren't particularly great. bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The infamous experience I have in mind was off the end of Clacton Pier, the water was choppy, the boat was bumping hard on the bottom and being pushed further onto a sandbar, and people on the pier were waving! lol Yes, I expect the Meermin settled into the sandy bottom pdq, since you put it that way; maybe just a weird, occasional rocking, or something…? It's funny getting off a boat after a few days, how the solid ground beneath you becomes all wibbly-wobbly! :o) Nortonius (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I gather they can get some quite impressive surf at Struisbaai, and if the sea was "too rough" for the ship's boat, it would seem to indicate that things might have been a bit rocky. (Sorry about that one.) And if she was on a sandbank, the surf would have been coming up around her there; she wasn't a deep-draught ship, at all, only about 3+ m from keel to waterline, and if she grounded at high tide, and there was a tidal range of 1.3m ... hmmm. And by that point she'd be leaning quite a bit, so the top of the surf would be a bit scary, compared to the edge of the sloping deck. Pesky (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yeah rocky ;op – now I'm swinging around me anchor! eek maths! :os Nortonius (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't even read the word "anchor" now without remembering with a grin just how hard it was to resist putting that one at the end of a line on The Saga ... ;P Pesky (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[thinks: what rhymes with anchor? lulz] I can't forget realising I was looking at a tanker at anchor… These foolish things! :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Krause might rhyme with anchor ... ;P Pesky (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By Jove! So it does...! :o) Nortonius (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)