User talk:Davidships

Discussion transferred to User talk:Mjroots#Red ensigns on British ships registered in India.

In the last days in possession of this supermajority, however, MAS parliamentarians used it  to make 20 changes to the constitution that formerly required a two-thirds majority to now require a simple majority, so that they could now be passed unopposed. Some opposition parliamentarians left the session in protest.[1][2][3][4] Opposition leader Carlos Mesa condemned the changes, saying "Authoritarianism, abuse and the submission of the Legislative Assembly continue".[5]

Should I put this in results, reactions or perhaps a new section for aftermath? I thought it was OK in the lead, because it effects what counts as a majority from a constitutional PoV so the usual lead material on majorities has changed definition. Perhaps an abbreviated version without the comments in the lead?Crmoorhead (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In my view it belongs where I just put it - in "background" - as it was an action of the outgoing congress and not diretly part of the election process. It should be probably be explained in most detail in the article on the outgoing congress or the political crisis (but I am not touching those articles). The consequences of this change in the light of the election majority seem to be important, hence the brief mention under Results, and the consequent reference in the Lead, but any real effects are for the future and will no doubt come to be written about in relation to political/constitutional developments in the future. Davidships (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I actually didn't notice you moved it to elsewhere on the page. I thought it was just gone. Yeah, I agree that it should't figure too much as the repercussions are outside of the election, but since it was part of the power transition it felt like something that was in limbo between the Anez and Arce governments. Thanks for the prompt reply. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

hi, could you make me a favour and kind gentle review all those ships ? Thanks... the guy removed the pic of ocean countess... so... Cruise & Maritime Voyages Regards and thanks... --90.186.219.85 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you not really give a touch in those =? MARCO POLO Manager "International Maritime Service Ltd, Fremantle, Australia" MAGELLAN changed owner 10.2020 to Wanda Services Ltd - manager Eaglepower Shipping Co, Limassol is a Seajets company. COLUMBUS for new owner Okoye Trading Ltd - manager Eaglepower Shipping Co, Limassol is a Seajets company.

welll Chistmas man thought being nicier to each other but up to u --90.186.219.85 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my revert. Although either the other ships hatnote or a redirect are acceptable by SHIPS MOS if you do not use the other ships hatnote this will result in the set index page becoming an orphan, also should a later ship (or an earlier unrecorded ship) be added to the SI page results in the linked pages presenting an incomplete record and requiring amendment. Even if you don't agree with the foregoing in this case the removal of the other ships hatnote was an unnecessary change and therefore should be reverted Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The prime (only?) purpose of such hatnotes is to help readers reach an article they seek as efficiently as possible; when the index has only two entries, both with articles, it is an unhelpful step (I accept that the list was properly created as, at the time, one was red-linked). In any case, following at least the logic of WP:ORP incoming hatnotes do not count - shipindexes should be orphans in the true sense. Whether there will ever be another Soryu is anyone's guess - there are no others in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945 (Jentschura, Jung & Miclel 1970/1977), Janes 1980, Miramar or Equasis. If, however, it does emerge, it can be dealt with as routine housekeeping at the time. All the merchant ships I can see are Soryu Maru

My apologies, Lyndaship, for late reply (had a Firefox crash yesterday); and for apparently misinterpreting WP:BRD from a "who does what" point of view. Davidships (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I know you are not one to ignore any message and that as soon as you saw it you would respond. You do have a point in that by linking to the set index rather than to the other ship of the same name any reader who wants to read about that ship is inconvenienced by having to click through two pages rather than going direct. However an orphan page would come up on the weekly list of errors if tagged as such (not that I have ever seen one so tagged). My preference is to use the other ships hatnote, as you probably noticed I set up and linked most of the Japanese SI pages that way and I do like consistency but in the light of your response I'll leave Soryu be Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Although individual redirects can work for two ther ships, they start to be confusing and intrusive, so I would normally limit the "specific" approach to where there are only two ships. As it is difficult to when a link to a SI would be needed from the body of a substantive article, I think that orphan tag should not be attached SIs (and that seems consistent with the thinking in WP:ORP. (I hunted high and low to find a third Soryu to neutralise the issue, but to no avail!) Davidships (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Re your change of ensign in the list of shipwrecks in November 1873, the Canadian red ensign page itself says in the "History" section, that the 1868 flag was used on land and at sea. It would therefore seem that the article contradicts the rationale you gave for the change. Please revert. Am happy to discuss this at WP level, would suggest the WP covering flags would be the best venue. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots That is a bit selective. Firstly it was "on an informal or extra-legal basis", and secondly there is no indication how widely it was used (but it is clear from the subsequent text that its use on land increased gradually); the reference given (in the Lead) says "...since the 1870s", so perhaps not widely used by 1873 anyway.

The ships in question were registered under MSA1854, and Section 105 is clear that a warrant was required for the Canadian variant, and that was not forthcoming until 1892. Until then it was illegal and subject to a very severe penalty - £500 fine, about £50,000 today - though clearly that was not widely enforced in Canada. We have no idea what actual ensign these ships flew in 1873, and I do not think we should insinuating that they did anything other than display the correct one.

If you think a wider discussion is warranted, WT:CANADA might well be a better forum as it is much more active; and also because the issue is about historic status/usage in Canada. Davidships (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, let's take this to WT:CANADA, we can notify other relevant WPs (flags, ships). I'm keen that the flags are correct, but am not sure that the Red Ensign is correct once the Dominion had been created from British North America. There's also the question of the Newfoundland Colony and its flag. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots Should I assume that you are not taking this question WT:CANADA for the time being? For my part I am in no doubt that the unadorned Red Ensign is correct as it was the only legally correct merchant ensign for ships registered in Canada under MSA1854 until 1892 (I also have no reason to doubt that some ships registered under MSA1854 did fly the Canadian variant before then, but that was unofficial and, strictly-speaking, illegal). You may recall this research paper by the Flag Institute from our previous discussion on the Indian Red Ensign. You will also see that Newfoundland received its Admiralty warrant for its own Red Ensign on 25 Oct 1918. Davidships (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been giving this some thought. As the issue seems to affect more than one country, WT:HV would seem to be a better place to discuss. Other WPs can be alerted to the discussion. I'm nearly finished with the 1873 newspapers, which I hope to finish by tomorrow at the latest. Once that is done, I'll start a discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. I hope that we will be able to keep the discussion focused on the status of this flag as a maritime ensign. Davidships (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, I've started the discussion at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire. WPs SHIPS, Canada, India British Empire have been informed. Feel free to alert whatever other WPs you feel it relevant to notify. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you are fine. I have provided 3 official reference. I hope this will help the article. Mr. SRS 00 always keeps reverting my edit. Neither he updates any information nor let me to add anything with references. I have been following his contributions for couple of days. He just edits 1/2 times a day just to revert my edits. I simply don't know what to do. Shariar 375 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are fine. Thank you so much for your kind consideration on BNS Sangram. I need another help on BNS Abu Bakar (2014) to fix a spelling mistake. It will be Abu Bakr not Bakar. I'm providing official reference so that you can consider the situation. ^[1] Shariar 375 (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Shariar 375 As official source confirms that Bakr spelling is correct, I've changed the relevant articles. Davidships (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind consideration Shariar 375 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The clarification request you filed has been closed and archived - you can view the permalink to see the outcome. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Firefly - thank you. The clarification was helpful. Davidships (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Why keep? If it is thought necessary to keep, should be in the history section along with any earlier versions which are not used. Certainly shouldn't just be randomly plonked in the lead section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to history, with refs (thanks for your thanks). There was at least one earlier version (see the earliest of the added refs), but I have not found a usable version. Davidships (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The next time you do this, it's a trout! Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Davidships! Forgive me if you already know this, but the numeric reference names such as those you mentioned and changed in this edit to Bob Enyart are frequently automatically generated (i think it's the visual editor which does it, though i may be wrong), and the person doing it may not even have realised what happened. I come across them reasonably often when i'm semi-automatically editing and for a long time didn't know what caused them ~ that's the only reason i popped over to let you know, in case you didn't either. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LindsayH - That's interesting, and news to me. Seems strange that the editing software should do something which which is contrary to WP's own guidelines. I'll ask about this. Personally I find these ":0"-type names really annoying when editing using an existing ref. Davidships (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to say Courland Governorate, Russian Empire? We don't say, e.g. Nigeria Colony, British Empire do we? If people want to know more, it is only a click away. Another point is that I always pipe links to the Russian Empire as Russia, per COMMONNAME. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots - I would be more than happy with Courland Governorate, Russia. My only concern is not to leave readers with only an obscure indication of locale with no indication of what country it is in (between Riga and Hull there are many possibilities).Davidships (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, tricky on this. We don't say "Egypt Eyalet, Ottoman Empire", do we? - I just use Egypt. I think this probably needs a discussion at Wikiproject level. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Handling linking to historic countries, where I have copied the above discussion over. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why this edit of mine was reverted as I was only clarifying the casualty of the crew and made no amendment to the cause of the sinking. You left an edit summary about the cause of the sinking but the EER citation was for the casualty. "All six crew members have since been safely accounted for, the Estonian foreign ministry says. None of the six were Estonian citizens, the ministry added." This is confirmed by other sources. 1 2 Just wanted to let you know my intentions before editing it in again. Rinbro (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rinbro - Apologies, that was unintentional - it was the previous edit to yours which concerned me. Your text now restored.

No worries, we're both just trying to keep stuff up to date and accurate! Appreciate your help. Rinbro (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input on IMO number. I was tempted to re-edit or revert, on the following grounds, but as I see the reasons for your changes, and you seem to be better versed in maritime stuff than me, it makes sense to discuss here first.

- Re the 'Unnecessary verbage in caption' - granted, it may not be necessary, but it did provide in one place a simple demonstration of how this number remains the same despite other things changing. I'd argue there is some value in having such an example shown, particularly as this photograph and description does show the name changes quite clearly.

- Re 'owner/management IMO numbers are not "hull numbers"' - true, but the article's title is 'IMO number' and hence actually should include IMO Ship Numbers, Company Numbers and Registered Owner Numbers (see also e.g. https://ihsmarkit.com/products/imo-ship-company.html). Indeed, further down in the article ('Company and Registered Owner Regulation 2005') it discusses the latter two. So either the article's title should be changed to 'IMO ship number', or the introductory text should clarify that there are three types (with 'a type of hull number' only referring to one of them)... even though in common usage 'IMO number' might most often be understood to refer to the ship number.

Shall I leave it to you to edit further, with these points in mind? I don't want to do so only to have the changes reverted by you. Incidentally, the 'identifier for ships' could/should be linked to the article ship identifier too. Ozaru (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

{u|Ozaru}. Re Evangelia, it doesn't show what you say it does. The photo is a single snapshot and doesn't show whether that number had been changed or not (indeed, as the number is painted on a separate welded plate it raises questions). It would need a sequence of photos, with different names, to illustrate that point.

See the second sentence of the Lead re company numbers.

By all means link to ship identifier. Davidships (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

{u|Ozaru} - Examples can be useful to assist the reader to understand something. Which part of "The number identifies a ship and does not change when the ship's owner, country of registry (flag state) or name changes" is made clearer by the new following sentence?

As I will step back from editing this article for the time being, may I draw your attention to:

* WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship names in articles - ship names should be italicised

* MOS:LEAD - all that detail should be in the body of the article, and then summarised in the Lead section. Davidships (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw in your recent edits to the much-discussed trawler V206 that you changed the data for Roche to a second edition with a different ISBN. Can you confirm that a second edition has been published as there's no entry for the ISBN on Worldcat. And if so, where did you get it from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 - Yes, I have a copy in front of me. It has "Edition 2013" on the title page and "©2013 JMR" with the revised ISBN, but no publisher stated (same for Vol I). I did see it the other day in a bibliographical list but I have not been able to find it again. I believe it to be published by the author, but I bought it several years ago, probably through NetMarine. Whether it really is a new edition, or just a reprint, I cannot tell (if it is confirmed as just a reprint, it would be probably be better to use the original ref details, I think). Davidships (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that you're correct about it being self published. Perhaps he took the opportunity to correct mistakes before going back to the printer. I'm going to send you a couple of pages that I copied so you can check them against your copy if you'd be so kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A French reviewer on Amazon praised the book, but he also pointed out that it "would deserve some errata" index, means a list of printing/typing/factual errors and subsequent corrections, in 2016, referring to the original edition. The same year, another French reviewer remarked that the author provided his email address in the first edition, but complains that messages are not answered by the author, so publishing a revision would make sense. Amazon and Abebook do not mention a publisher for Volume II, iirc. The German search engine for new/second-hand books, eurobuch.com, has Volume I listed under ISBN-10 2952591709 and ISBN-13 9782952591706 and as self-published in 2005, Abebooks lists Volume I as "Auto-edition, 2005" (self-published) and under the same ISBNs. Abebook indicates "Jean-Michel Roche, 2019" as publisher for his book "Commandants, états-majors et activité des bâtiments de la Marine française - Tome 1 - 1661-1689", so it doesn't look like he ever got a publisher for his works, which is quite sad, as even public/university libraries in several countries hold copies of this brilliant piece. GeeGee (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GeeGee, that's helpful. I couldn't see any changes between the couple of pages that Sturmvogel 66 emailed me adn my copy. But it would be "looking for a needle in a haystack" even with 2 editions side-by-side. There are certainly errors in the 2013 edition (which may well of course be errors in Roche's sources, rather than introduced by him). If we knew what comments on the original edition the French reviewer had emailed him, it would be possible to check more easily. Davidships (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that Roche never received the email, as the address could have been valid in 2005 but obsolete/abandoned by 2016. The 2013 edition may contain a more recent addy, maybe you could contact the author to gather if it's a revision or just a reprint? One reason for having it reprinted may be the fact that the volumes of the first edition are sold by second-hand/antiquarian book shops for 150 Euros each (and more), as they rate it as standard work (which it is) and as they know that there aren't many copies in circulation. If I am not mistaken, the original price was ~78 Euros per volume in 2005 (I've seen that price tag in a list somewhere once, but I can't remember where), so it's possible that Roche just ordered a reprint to a) meet the demand and/or b) to dry up parts of the secondary market trades and direct funds to his pocket, without conducting a full/partial revision. :) GeeGee (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I have only just realised that on 18 November 2020 you erased all the material I had added to SS Tuscania (1921), only six hours after I added it. Why? What is it about correctly-referenced information about a the subject of an article that it must be swiftly deleted from Wikipedia?

Six months later, on 23 May 2021, you reinstated only some of that information. Material still missing, 19 months after you deleted it, includes her code letters, various maritime call signs, wartime pennant number, Second World War nickname, and the fact that she belonged specifically to the Ministry of War Transport, not just "British Government". You have reinstated her official number, but not put it back in her infobox. You have changed the order of the infobox so that it is now partly asequential. I chose the infobox format that I did in order to keep it as compact as possible, and for entries to be historically sequential.

You have not reinstated the fact that in 1925 there was a collision between Tuscania and Rochambeau in New York harbor. The damage to Rochambeau was assessed at $100,000. This is a significant event in Tuscania's history.

Even after I expanded the article, I left the introduction too short. But at least it included all her names. This is essential for any reader navigating Wikipedia who is looking for her under her later names of Nea Hellas and New York. You have made the introduction even shorter, leaving out much of the information that it should include.

One item that you did reinstate was a Blue Ensign in her infobox. What is your source to verify that she flew one?

I note also that there is a discrepancy between her passenger capacity as stated in the text (which has a reference) and stated in her infobox. If she was passenger capacity was changed in a refit, this should be properly referenced.

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Motacilla: Just a quick acknowledgement - it seems strange, and I will have a proper look later on today. Davidships (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Motacilla: Very peculiar, I am afraid, and certainly not intentional. It seems that, somehow, I inadvertently used my earlier version of 30 July, rather than the then current version, to make what was a small amendment. I am very sorry about that. Unless you prefer that I keep my clumsy fingers off this, I am happy to work through your version of 18 Nov 2020, adding back the missing material, in the light of later editing. Just let me know whether that will be OK with you. Again, my apologies for being so careless. Davidships (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for your message and kind offer. I apologise for taking a few days to reply. I have put Tuscania on my "to do" list, and I will re-work the article in the near future. Motacilla (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Motacilla: OK - thanks for your understanding. Davidships (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to have another go? Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots for the heads-up. I suppose that I must have left it too long to save, and the session-data was lost (except that the intended change was made to the ship entry itself). Davidships (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Given your interest in the subject area, you might want to take a look at this ongoing AFD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned LR1969 at WT:SHIPS. The last one we have at WP:SHIPS/R is 1960. Are you able to add links to any later registers? Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You can update that table somewhat from Lloyd's Register of Ships Online Latest currently available is 1994, but note that there some missing years or some missing volumes for a given year. I think that they have already scanned more and are still adding further volumes from time-to-time, so worth rechecking every now-and-again - maybe add that portal to the resources page.

Also, I notice that the resources page lists the American Lloyd's (AL) available on the Mystic Seaport website, but not the Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1900 which has the advantage of covering up to 1900, and accessible on the same [search page, along with 1857-1858 New-York Marine Register, which was the immediate predecessor of AL.

Google Books also have at least 12 years of the RINA register in the range 1916-1938. Davidships (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Davidships: Wow. Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Acad Ronin That's kind. It was a bit of an experiment to see whether something substantial enough would emerge, but it didn't, as I have kind-of-said on the AfD page. Davidships (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries; I agree. It should end up a merge, which it was almost certainly going to anyway. Still, I really liked how you took the stuff from the shipbox and put it into the text. In the meantime, I am working on the Hibberts. I have already put up George Hibbert (1803 ship), which I am almost certain is not the one on the gate. The one on the gate is almost surely Hibbert (ship)#Hibberts (1784 ship). I have found a great secondary source that discusses a complex case arising out of the second (of three) times that she was captured. That, and Broichmore's picture, should tip her into WP Notability territory. Still, I will look for a little more. Nothing urgent though. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For "merge" outcomes how much do you think can put into a Constantia (ship), without it no longer being a list article (or looking grossly unbalanced? Davidships (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Without the shipbox, the Lloyd's Register boxes, and the headings, the actual text usually compresses into a paragraph. The other vessels in Constantia (ship) already have paragraphs, though shorter ones. For an example of what not to do, see Woodman (ship); not what I would have done and something I am going to have to fix. Also, the ship page is a shipindex, which is close to a list, but I think not quite the same thing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Shedden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Shedden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Davidships,

Since you edited part of the Thala Dan page, can you help in italicizing the title to Thala Dan? I tried to do it using DISPLAYTITLE, but without any success.

Pepys (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Done - Davidships (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! This is tricky that the infobox caption interferes with the page title.

Pepys (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, List of ships named Buccaneer, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Maersk Hangzhou—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks - Davidships (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Hi, I see you have made the fleet lits sortable. I'm not sure this is much use, the first column is already in alphabetical order, sorting will merely bring the single motor vessel to the top of the list. Sorting on the next two columns will produce useful results but sorting on the notes column will just produce a jumble of results. Is there a way of exluding the first and last columns from being sorted? Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm already resolving the MV problem. The notes column can be ignored, that's common with sortable tables. The important thing is to able to sort by age of ship and by joining of company fleet. Thanks though. - Davidships (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49:. Found how to remove a column from sorting! - Davidships (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Good news must see how it's done. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discus sion page. Thank you.

Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment-- Merzostin (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake. I was looking for details of the novel, which had been removed, and I must have clicked on the edit tab for the older version. Thank you for restoring. PearlyGigs (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs: - Thanks for coming back to me. No probs. I've done that too.- Davidships (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to sign over at the composers group talk! I see your point about resolving Haydn (as I suggested) but these thing can take an age and other things can be done at the same time. Hope you are well! — Iadmc♫^talk  14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear David, many thanks for your contribution and apologies for not having explored the subject sufficiently on my own ! Greetings from France ! Mitchosaure (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem Mitchosaure - we are all on learning-curves! - Davidships (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for adding to Solebay. I don't have frequent need for EIC content but am sorely lacking whenever it does come up. I can't find any obvious place to purchase Hackman - would you recommend it, and if so do you know where I could obtain a copy? I am assuming it is similar in format to something like Winfield. I see I could buy Sutton's Lords of the East which claims to include "technical details of its ships" and that "vessels are described in depth", but don't know whether it would prove useful. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be an inapplicable AI image under "World War II" section beginning "Dazzle under development:" I'd fix it myself but don't know how. You've edited there recently, so contacting you as maybe someone who could fix. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage WebNav (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@WebNav:I do not think that it is anything to do with AI - it is apparently a 1943 painting by artist James Yunge-Bateman who worked at the camouflage unit at Leamington in WW2. However, it seems to be out of place in the Dazzle camouflage article (and in Ship camouflage), adding nothing to the understanding of the subject, partly perhaps as a consequence of the style of painting. It was added a decade ago by experienced editor Chiswick Chap, whose view would be welcome. - Davidships (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The image is directly relevant, showing as it does how the Directorate of Camouflage Naval Section went about developing and testing its dazzle patterns. The image, as the cited text in the section ('Ships') that contains the image says, shows how "Dazzle patterns were tested on small model ships at the Royal Navy's Directorate of Camouflage in Leamington Spa; these were painted and then viewed in a shallow tank on the building's roof.[37][40]" I am therefore somewhat puzzled that you should question the image's relevance: it is reliably cited, and it offers a direct insight into the development process. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:. Thanks for your thoughts. I don't doubt its subject relevance or its provenance. It seems that we just differ on whether the style of this painting is conducive to a better understanding for the reader - personally I find it easier to visualise it from the verbal description than from what looks more like an "infinity pool". But maybe that's just me, so never mind. - Davidships (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

My mistake. Was trying to learn about dazzle. The image immediately struck me as odd and didn't seem to coincide with or be explained by its caption. I should have delved deeper than the provided link (and investigated the associated footnote).

WebNav (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

In article Carl Panzram subject:In 1920 his yacht was wrecked near atlantic City New Jersey. Addition please: There is a contemporary Newspaper account:

Carl Panzram aka John O'Leary captain of yacht Akiska along with John Delaney and J. Gilmore had lashed themsleves to the yacht capstan after the Akiska foundered and turned over on its side on the Brigantien Shoals at Atlantic City NJ trying to make shelter in Absecon Inlet; on October 6, 1920 they were rescued by Captain Henry Brown of a fishing smack; O'Leary was in Hospital from Shock and exposure.^[1] 2603:6010:BB00:288B:5FC:34CB:1D81:6B0 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of shipwrecks in July 1850, a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Plate was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)