Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Is it worth creating a new set of categories - "Category:Ships scrapped in (year)"? We have categories for ships launched by year. The majority of ships are scrapped, rather than being lost through wrecks or wartime causes. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

One issue to consider is the ambiguity in "scrapped" as it is used as shorthand for "to be sold for scrapping", "actually sold for scrapping", "arrival at scrapyard", "scrapping begun", "scrapping completed" and probably other variants. And a significant minority of vessels are resold by ship-scrappers, for demolition elsewhere or to return to operation, if only in a reduced state, eg as trading barges or houseboats. Also, allocating to a particular year can be problematic as there can be significant periods between those different stages of the process, extending to several years, and much sourcing is in any case imprecise (referencing for other specific ship events - launch, entry int o service, casualties/loss - is on the whole much better). - Davidships (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd take scrapping begun over scrapping completed, as that is where the "point of no return" lies. For vessels not completely scrapped (converted to barges, reduced to hulks etc), the category would not apply. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But do you think that there are RSes to support that unambiguous choice for anything other than a small minority of notable individual ships? It's not that I am opposed to the idea, it's how to deal with vague sources whilst avoiding OR. Let's see what others think. - Davidships (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to think that there's actually much value in adding such categories, even disregarding the sourcing issues mentioned above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has two sets of categories for scrapped ships. One is for the year, and it always seems to use the year when the ship arrived at the breakers' yard. The other is for the location. The latter is interesting, because it shows which places have been prominent in ship-breaking at different times in history. For example, in the 1920s and 1930s, Italy and Japan were prominent, because they lacked iron ore, and their manufacturing industries needed steel. And some of that scrap may have gone into re-arming those two countries for the Second World War. In recent decades, by contrast, ship-breaking has shifted to places such as Aliağa in Turkey, and Gadani Beach in Pakistan.

From the above, one can derive two opposing arguments. One is that these categories are useful for anyone who uses categories to analyse trends in ship-breaking. The counter-argument is that as Commons has these two sets of categories, there is no need for Wikipedia to duplicate them. But the counter-argument may be flawed, as I find that many Wikipedia users have little or no idea that Commons even exists. Further, Wikipedia has categories by year for ships that sank. It seems inconsistent not to match this by having categories by year for ships that were scrapped. Motacilla (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Motacilla. I hadn't thought of "Category:Ships scrapped at (location)", but it is also a logical one, we already have categories for ships launched by location. So, it we are to have one, we should have both. I appreciate that many thousands of ship articles are involved, which is why I raised this discussion rather than being bold. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of ships get abandoned by their owners rather than scrapped, while others just get delisted from registers. A more generic category for ship career ends might be more appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: - any suggestion of what this more generic category might be called and how it may fit into the category structure? Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've given it some thought from time to time and coming up with a category name has been a bit of a struggle. I did come up with what seemed to me a viable name some time ago, but unfortunately it's slipped my mind. But I was kind of hoping that somebody else might be able to suggest a generic term for it.

As for where it would fit into the category tree, I guess it would be in the parent category of a "Ships scrapped in" category, wherever that might be. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You could do a category:Ships by year of disposal as the parent cat, and then category:Ships disposed of in the 1900s, category:Ships disposed of in the 1910s, and then category:Ships disposed of in 1911. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds viable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

For the scrapped by location categories, categorise by country to start with. Can categorise by individual town later if necessary. Historic countries to be subcats of the modern country. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but in one respect a challenging one. The fates of numerous merchant ships, for example those that were transferred to the USSR or sold to the People's Republic of China after the Second World War, seem to be unrecorded. The USSR and the PRC often did not tell registries in the West, such as Lloyd's, what became of those ships. Lloyd's eventually deleted ships that had disappeared in this way, but it was all educated guesswork. I am not sure whether one could identify a year of "disposal" for such ships. One has only the year when Lloyd's deregistered them. Would it be useful to create a load of categories for "year of deregistration"? I have yet to be persuaded, but please feel welcome to change my mind! Motacilla (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Emethigg (talk · contribs) has been boldly moving ship articles to remove their ship prefix, e.g. moving MV Armenistis to Armenistis, or MV Iron Baron (1985) to Iron Baron (1985). These moves are essentially all of this users edits. I inquired with the user at their talk page but received no response before more moves were made today. WP:NCSHIP does state that ship prefixes are optional, but these articles have been stable at these titles for years, and absent evidence in each case that the ship is primarily known without a ship prefix, I don't see any benefit in the moves. I strongly oppose such moves in cases of disambiguation, such as Iron Baron above, because without the ship prefix, the year is an insufficient disambiguator- it would need to be Iron Baron (1985 ship). I'm interested in others views on these moves and whether they are net positive or not. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mdewan6: Iron Baron (1985 ship) suggests a full-rigged ship built in 1985! Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

To me, and probably most readers, a ship is a ship, and does not immediately imply a sailing vessel. IMHO, The launch year is insufficient disambiguation unless accompanied by a ship prefix or the word "ship". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It is ... remarkable that an account with about 500 edits has decided to move a swath of pages. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong. It would be a rare case that a modern vessel would be better known with its prefix vs. without. For example, a Google News search for "MS Kydon Palace", a recent move, brings up mostly entries from Wikipedia(!). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Should be noted that Mdewman6 (talk · contribs) has also moved many ship articles recently quoting the exact same guideline I did. Not as if I introduced a whole new style, many ship articles are named with prefixes or suffixes and have been for a long time, Queen Elizabeth 2 etc. Emethigg (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Each move should be considered on its own merit whether or not the current article title is its WP:COMMONNAME or if it needs to be moved to have the prefix removed. They should not be moved en-masse without any regard for article titling policies. RachelTensions (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@RachelTensions: I don't mind boldly moving articles when there's an extremely high chance that the new name better accords with our guidelines, whether that's WP:NCSHIPS or WP:PRECISION. Are there any specific moves that you disagree with? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@RachelTensions: Also, it's probably more disruptive to wholesale revert the moves. Please stop while this discussion continues. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that RachelTensions has continued to revert the moves instead of continuing to discuss here. This isn't vandalism or something that needed to be fixed right this second, and these titles have a decent shot at persisting. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed several of them that are either a) very unlikely to be the WP:COMMONNAME, b) naturally disambiguated by having the prefix rather than adding a year or (ship), c) undescriptive, or d) so ambiguous once the prefix is removed that a reader would have no idea that they weren't clicking on a similarly titled article for a person or place.

Note that WP:RMUM and the whole move procedure in general specifies that bold moves may be reverted if contested, and longstanding procedure is to a revert to status quo while discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

These particular moves were done in good faith and have a decent chance at sticking, so it would have been less disruptive to leave the moves in place while discussion continues. Now it's another 500 entries on people's watchlists and then someone will need to spend time re-moving them if this discussion goes in a certain direction. WP:NOTBURO, etc. etc. Finally, speaking generally... if someone says "hey, would you stop for a moment so we can think about this", it's often a good idea to step back and discuss instead of ignoring the person for the next hour. There was no urgency/the new titles were not overtly disruptive for the time being, and more broadly there is no deadline.

To the substantive questions. First, do you have examples of articles you think are unlikely to have a non-prefixed common name? As I said above, modern ship prefixes are unlikely to be part of a common name. There are going to be some, but I'd be surprised if it were many. Second, I'm curious about that undescriptive/ambiguous point. Something like "Madeleine II" or "Norbank" sound like they could be about something other than a ship, but if there's nothing else on-wiki to disambiguate it against then our policies/guidelines say it should be at that title. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

My 2p worth - it is useful to have ships disambiguated by year of launch (or rarely, by builder and year of launch) because it makes it more obvious which ship is being discussed. Ship prefixes are also useful in this context. With redlinks, it gives a potential researcher useful info to aid research into that ship if they wish to write an article. For these reasons, I'd be in favour of reverting such moves. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC))

I have initiated three WP:RMs to see what the community's thoughts are on these. In many cases the moves I made were in line with how many other ship articles are named, e.g. Oasis of the Seas, Queen Elizabeth 2, Scarlet Lady, Vistafjord etc. While some of the names may arguably not have been the primary topic, in all cases the name was vacant as system controls would have prevented an existing page from being overwritten.

Back in days of yore, ships often had the prefix in their name, but not on contemporary ships. Case in point being the Pride of Hull where 20 cites from 10 separate sources, all describe the ship as Pride of Hull and not MS Pride of Hull. In this case there is no real evidence that it is named MS Pride of Hull when only Wikipedia and mirror sites use it. Emethigg (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Back in days of yore, ships often had the prefix in their name. Not so - it was very rare. You are confusing the ship's name with how the ship is written about, with these ship-type prefixes often added as descriptive abbreviations (and some writers still do). That is, "MS Pride of Hull", not "MS Pride of Hull". - Davidships (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about most of these articles in regard to whether they use the ship prefix or not. My initial concern was that the naming conventions make ship prefixes optional, but these articles has been stable at these titles for years and there had been no discussion. In fact, the word optional actually implies it is subjective and therefore potentially controversial and should be discussed. No user, especially a new single-purpose account, should be making mass moves without discussion or an unambiguous, non-optional naming convention. My primary concern overall is disambiguation, and WP:SHIPPREFIX makes clear that ship prefixes can serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which should be used to avoid parenthetical disambiguation when possible. As noted above, I oppose moves where the ship prefix is removed but the launch year is kept (or added) by itself as parenthetical disambiguation. In the case of one ship versus non-ship uses, the qualifier should be "ship", and if there are more than one ship (of any type- since we no longer have a prefix) it should be "[launch year] ship". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: on Wikipeda, we use "(ship)" as a disambiguator to distinguish full-rigged ships from other types of sailing ship. Thus Foo (ship), Foo (barque), Foo (snow), Foo (barquentine) etc. etc. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

No user, especially a new single-purpose account, should be making mass moves without discussion. Per the WP:BRD process, anybody can make edits. If another editors reverts, then it needs to be discussed which is what I have done. I made the moves over a couple of weeks in tranches. It wasn't until the last tranche that somebody piped up.

Regards the Iron Baron, per the cites in the article it was universally referred to as the Iron Baron, not the MV Iron Baron, meaning both the MV prefix and 1985 suffix are being used to disambiguate. Much as parenthetical disambiguation may be less desirable, better to have the dabs contained at the end, be it (1985) or (1985 ship). Not particularly buying the argument that (ship) should only be used full-rigged ships, which I think it what Mjroots is suggesting. Emethigg (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we actually have an official guideline stating "ship" is reserved for disambiguating full-rigged ships from other types of sailing ships and, if so, where can I challenge it? I refuse to reserve such generic word for such specific use. Tupsumato (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything (on a quick skim) at WP:NCSHIPS that suggests there's such a rule. I would also be opposed to it, since we are a generalist encyclopedia, and should not use such specialist standards. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That's right - it would most appropriately be in WP:NCSHIP#Naming articles about civilian ships. It is absent, and indeed the guidance clearly implies that it is not so reserved as two of the examples given - Niña (ship) and Santa María (ship) - were not full-rigged ships.

This has been discussed from time to time, most recently, at length, in:

• 2017 , in the context of options for ship index pages. Strongest support was for All articles on full-rigged ships shall be titled in the style "Foo (full-rigged ship)". This was, however, never actioned.

• 2020 , where Mjroots (talk · contribs) accepted that the consensus established [in 2017] needs to be implemented in respect of full-rigged ships being housed at titles in the style of Foo (full-rigged ship) with further disambiguation by year of launch if necessary. However, this time there were additional contributors who expressed doubts and, again, nothing was taken forward. - Davidships (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

+3. Along Parsecboy's lines, a ship is a ship to 99.9% of the world. Heck, I'd qualify myself as a ship person and I wouldn't assume "ship" = sailing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I am glad this debate has arisen. I have long felt ambivalent about English Wikipedia's convention of prefixing merchant ship names with "SS", "MV", "MS", etc, even though I politely comply with it. I have just created MV Tajandoen. But I included the "MV" only out of custom and practice, not any strong affection. Equally, I have just revised and expanded Sliedrecht (tanker). It could have "MV" added to it, but I am unsure whether it would be an improvement.

Wikimedia Commons does without prefixes for merchant ships. Wikipedia in other languages, such as German, does without. Japan has always managed without: every ship is simply "— Maru".

With steamships, the "SS" convention is usually easy enough to apply. The exception is "TSS", which might mean "twin screw steamship", or "turbine steamship", or might never have been to a particular ship, even though she had turbines, or twin screws, or whatever. With motor ships, the prefix convention sometimes leaves me wondering whether to put MV, MS, or even MT for "motor tanker". So if we abolished non-essential prefixes, it could make life a bit simpler.

The predilection for adding "SS" or "MV" prefixes has led editors to make mistakes. I recently corrected U-47 (1938), in which the motor ship Britta was erroneously prefixed "SS". In my experience, such errors are not rare. If we scrapped non-essential prefixes, it would be one less thing to get wrong.

Also, adding a prefix to an article's name leads to having to add a "DEFAULTSORT" template. Hence, one superfluous item leads to another. Every additional character is more bytes on a server somewhere on the planet. It is all wasted electricity and heat, however small.

In recent decades, ship naming styles have changed. Numerous cargo companies now include, as part of a ship's name, a set of initials that refer to her operator or owner, and not to what sort of ship she is. MSC Napoli, for example. These are initials that we have to include. Hence, it might make things clearer to delete all the sets of initials that are not part of a ship's name.

That would leave us with the sets of initials that are essential. Mainly that includes naval ship prefixes such as HMS, USS, ORP, and so on; plus RMS for Royal Mail Ships. In that vein, one day perhaps we should discuss the German prefix RPD, for Reichspostdampfer.

It also applies to early sail-steamers, such as SS Great Britain, from an era when steamship operators were very pointedly advertising that their ships had engines. And we must retain a few unusual prefixes for merchant ships, which were also included for marketing reasons. One is QSMV for Dominion Monarch, which seems to have been an advertising gimmick invented by Shaw, Savill & Albion Line. Another is DEPV for Talisman, which I imagine was invented by the LNER for a similar reason.

Despite having discoursed on the matter in detail, I must add that I am not strongly bothered! The present arrangement is clunky, but we manage. If we adopt a different consensus, as long as it is well worked out, so be it! Motacilla (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 to most of that. I do have concerns with prefixes because I'd like people to more easily find our articles! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"SS" originally stood for "screw steamer", to differentiate from paddle steamers which were the norm at the time. Still, it appears to have been rarely employed until some decades after the introduction of screw propulsion in the 1840s. It came into common use in the later 19th century, probably around the time of the introduction of steel-hulled ships. The prefix "PS" for paddle steamers was AFAICT not used at all when the type was commonplace, it appears to be a late 19th-century invention to differentiate paddle from screw steamers when the former were becoming a rarity. For these reasons I no longer use either of these prefixes for vessels built before the late 19th century, unless it is clear from the historical record that particular vessels used them.

With regard to the use of "SS" generally, I think it's fine for later vessels, as they were commonly referred to by such. With regard to other prefixes such as "MV" etc., I do not have much experience with these vessel types, but am inclined to think they serve as useful aids for identifying articles as ships. But I don't really have a strong opinion about it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If colleagues will forgive my earlier prolixity, I wish to add a further point. Some ships just do not fit the customary system of propulsion-related prefixes for merchant ships.

For one example, Blue Funnel Line commissioned two ships, Dolius (1924) and Eurybates (1928), with Scott-Still engines. Those are combined steam and Diesel engines! English Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article for either of those ships, but their unique engines may cause a dilemma for any wikipedian who wants to create them.

For another example, numerous ships have been re-engined; either from steam to diesel, or in some cases vice-versa. The liners Asturias (1925) and Alcantara (1926) were built as motor ships, but were re-engined as turbine steamships. Fortunately for us, both were Royal Mail Ships, so their RMS prefix over-rides anything else! However, most ships are not Royal Mail Ships. For example, we describe MV Struma as a motor vessel, despite the fact that she was built as a steam yacht, and spent much of her long history as a steamship.

As I said earlier, I am mildly in favour of scrapping propulsion-related prefixes in as many cases as possible, subject to caveats such as those that I mentioned. And I am sure that my list of caveats is not exhaustive. This feels a little like our discussion not long ago on whether to include "the" in front of the names of ships: a debate worth having and resolving, but not a hill worth dying on. I hope that colleagues can resolve it with goodwill and good nature. Motacilla (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the reasons I tend to favour the use of "SS" for late-19th century ships on is because many, many ships are named after people, places or other commonplace things, which makes the "SS" a brief and useful disambiguator that also alerts readers to the fact that the article listed is a ship. It seems to me that other such prefixes can perform the same useful functions. But yes, there are invariably exceptions which complicate things, in whatever direction. And yes, there are ships that had a change of powerplants - maybe not a lot proportionally speaking, but a significant number nonetheless. I personally see this problem as not much different from the problem of ships with multiple names - one just picks the name which best fits the article. But again, it's not a clearcut issue and there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the ledger. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ship prefixes do disambiguate in our sense but are not well-known enough to signal "ship" to most general readers. Why prefer those over (ship)/other similar forms, which is a more standard way to disambiguate on Wikipedia and will be universally recognized? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, "ship" is clunkier. And "SS", certainly, is a very widely recognized prefix. "MV" is not, but you only have to click on such an article once to make the connection. Gatoclass (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps HSC HSS Discovery is the Klunky King at present? - Davidships (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Surely a candidate :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely a contender! "HSS" is a Stena abbreviation for "High-speed Sea Service", but what does "HSC" stand for? I'm guessing, but is it "High Speed Catamaran"? Because if so, that is a tautology, as well as a load of alphabet soup.

I know it's off-topic for our debate about whether to use propulsion prefixes for ship articles. And the names that companies give their ships is beyond our control. But boy, is that a clumsy name for a ship! Motacilla (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It is High-speed craft, as defined by the IMO in relation to the SOLAS convention. - Davidships (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Reading the literature of the period in which various mechanical means of propulsion were in use "advertising" does seem in play. As did a form of advocacy. As motors were emerging in a steam world there was quite a push for the more modern "motor ship" and the lines picked up on that with advertising. Those days are long gone. It would be a bit difficult to find commercial ships now that are not motor ships of some sort. The prefix of propulsion type is probably antiquated, something to be distinguished in the text and information box. There seems no need to continue "advertising" or "advocacy" now.

There are a few prefixes based on specialized usage that probably worth keeping as a sort of specialized "bin" but even there it is not necessary. Yes, research and cable ships are specialized but so are bulk carriers v. container ships v. LNG or tankers. ~2026-12562-05 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Fair, SS is absolutely the one people would know. I didn't make it clear in my last message, but I was thinking more of the modern ships per the comments way above. If my guess isn't far off-base, the common name of a large majority of modern vessels would not have a prefix. "Ship" might have a few more characters, but it's also a real word that people can read without a clickthrough. (We also don't spell out what a ship prefix is in most articles, so I'm not so sure that people actually make the connection...!) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My views on this topic are still evolving. But I do have an issue with the use of "ship" as a generic term, because prior to the 20th century, the term "ship" meant a certain type of vessel, ie a full-rigged ship. So when I am looking at, say, age of sail vessels, I expect the term "ship" to mean exactly that, as opposed to bark, brig, schooner etc. And I get pretty annoyed when I click on such an article to find that it isn't a full-rigged ship, but another kind of sailing vessel (or worse, a powered vessel).

So I think my initial position would have to be that the term "ship" only be used for vessels prior to, say, the 20th century, if they actually were full-rigged ships.

Now, with regard to vessels from the 20th century on, it might get a little more complicated, but if there is support for dumping certain prefixes, I think I would prefer to see vessels identified by the ship type just as for earlier vessels rather than the generic term "ship". So, "cargo ship", "tanker", "containership", "cruise ship", "ferry" etc. Apart from anything else, it provides more information for the reader and stops them from wasting time clicking on articles to try and find out what type of ship it is. Gatoclass (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SS Denebola#Requested move 12 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MS Pride of Hull#Requested move 20 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

By happenchance I discovered that editor October1944 has been, since mid-June 2024, prolifically improving entries in WW2 shipwreck lists, including adding tonnage figures to merchant ship entries (which I favour). This may be the earliest. Unfortunately they have been showing them as "t" for metric tons (weight), despite the sources clearly stating that the number is for gross register tons (volume). There are probably hundreds of ships affected. I raised this on their user page but elicited no response, and no let up in these additions. - Davidships (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm opposed to such additions. It is information that belongs in articles about ships, not shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with David that the unit is GRT but most sources uses t for this tonnage mesure. If there is a general agreement or Wikipedia guideline to use GRT, I will correct my submissions (that are effictively numerous).

Regarding the answer of Mjroots, most of the entries in the shipwrecks have not a page for the concerned ship, and I think that adding the tonnage is intestering, as the loss of a 100 GRT ship is not the same than a 10,000 GRT one. October1944 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Having seen Davissjips previous message on GRT template, I have started to correct my submissions to use it. October1944 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

October1944 (talk · contribs) - that's much appreciated - thank you. - Davidships (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I have finished reviewed pages from Sep 1939 to Aug 1945 and replaced all (xxx t) by the GRT template. Best regards October1944 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to add references to Timeline of aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy, but the body of the article is a massive graph in very small type. I suppose that I could try and add cites to each entry, but I've never dealt with a graph like this one before. Suggestions? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be some info around that graph. It's just a bunch of names and dates. I think there needs to be some prose with the graph as the culmination of that prose. This graph implies the reader knows the difference between laid down and launched and why there were so many aircraft carriers at the same time, but so little after Hermes. World War II is nearly a hundred years behind us. The intro sentence states that Argus was a "converted liner hull". The average reader knows what a converted liner hull is? My suggestion is to rewrite the article. Llammakey (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As an observation, it is missing the most recent carriers. and doesn't account for eg HMS Argus during her deployment as a helicopter carrier. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI that there's a new article about this current event. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

courtesy notification from WT:MILHIST

This article is a sorry underreferenced mess. Now that we have to figure out which ships have *actually* been sunk (hovercraft anyone??) I will start to work it over. There are also new Northern Fleet and Southern Fleet articles that need to be linked etc. Any assistance would be appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Kirishima has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

German destroyer Z11 Bernd von Arnim has only its name italicised in its article heading and the first line of its article, but has "Z11" also italicised in the "Name" parameter of its infobox.

German destroyer Z19 Hermann Künne has "Z19" italicised in its article heading and the first line of its article, but omits "Z19" from the "Name" parameter of its infobox.

German destroyer Z21 Wilhelm Heidkamp has "Z21" italicised in its article heading and the "Name" parameter of its infobox, but not in the first line of its article.

Hermann Künne's talk page includes a discussion, from 2018, as to whether "Z19" should be italicised.

Are all three variations correct? Or should the articles on German WW2 destroyers be tidied up, to give all of them a uniform appearance? Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

AIUI, the Z numbers are pennant numbers. They should not be in italics. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

They aren't pennant numbers; for whatever reason, the Germans gave prewar destroyers two names, but stopped doing it for war-built ships (like German destroyer Z39, for example). Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello all,

I just noticed that several categories that contained patrol vessel in their name were mass renamed to patrol boat in early March 2026. I tried searching for the reason behind this renaming but could not find it. However, now we have categories for large/ship-sized patrol vessels that are named patrol boat. For example, the category for the Shikishima-class patrol vessel is now called Category:Shikishima-class patrol boats (they have a displacement of nearly 10,000 tons and a length of 150 meters; I don’t believe you can call this a boat). Furthermore, patrol vessel categories for navies/countries were also renamed. For example, Patrol vessels of the Royal Netherlands Navy was renamed to Patrol boats of the Royal Netherlands Navy, while at the same time the category contains both ships and boats. Why did this happen? SailingthroughHistory (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this CFD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Category:Patrol vessels

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Explora Journeys article. DrThneed (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Talk:Carvel_(franchise)#Requested_move_3_March_2026. This is relevant due to its effect on Carvel (boat building), an article which comes under this Wikiproject. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

On 12 March 2026, the website for Southampton City Council public libraries was offline "for maintenance" for a short while. It then reappeared online, but with a new appearance and layout. The .pdf copies of Lloyd's Register from 1930 to 1945 inclusive are still online, but I can no longer find a webpage via which to search those registers for individual ships. Has any of you had the same problem? If so, I suggest that one of us politely ask Southampton City Council Libraries for an update.

The Internet Archive has digitised many editions of Lloyd's Register, but relatively few for the 16 years from 1930 to 1945. It has the Steamers and Motorships volume for only six of those 16 years, and the Sailing Vessels volume for only three of those 16 years. I tried the HathiTrust website, which has digitised copies of some merchant shipping registers, but that seems to have a copyright problem with Lloyd's Register.

So, if there is now a problem with searching Southampton City Council's digitised copies for 1930 to 1945, it needs fixing. If, on the other hand, the revised website retains this search facility, but I have failed to understand where it is, I need someone to tell me where it is, and how it works. Either way, I would be grateful to whichever of you who can help with this. Motacilla (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Motacilla: - it's changed, but still works. Enter the ship's name in the search box at top, press enter, and you should get links come up on the next screen. Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I was confused by the fact that the drop-down menu on the right-hand side no longer gives an option for "Lloyd's Register", as it used to. Motacilla (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A relatively new editor Drenchedwaveeidter has added overhaul information to USS Ronald Reagan. The editor has also added similar information to USS Gerald R. Ford. I reverted both of those edits because routine upkeep and maintenance periods are not encyclopedic; overhauls are part of every ship's life.

Of course, I was reverted (I wouldn't be here else) with these edit summaries:

Ronald Regan (diff): Made the 2026 description more concise – this is true; the previous version seems to be a lot of WP:OR because most of it wasn't supported in the attached source

Gerald R. Ford (diff): This is necessary and will be useful information in the future, also the nimitz page has it too – I don't know how this information will be useful to the general readership that en.wiki serves; perhaps to specialized naval historians but not to the general public. That USS Nimitz has an unsourced list of overhauls, which see, is merely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

It is my belief that these lists are inappropriate in a generalized encyclopedia. Comments from the WP:SHIPS community welcome. I will leave Drenchedwaveeidter's reverts in place to avoid the appearance of a WP:EDITWAR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Overhauls seem to be a staple of cruise ship articles as well. In the latter case I think it is there because there is very little to say about the average cruise ship. Like you, I don't see them as being particularly encyclopaedic. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A list is excessive. If anything, they should be integrated into the prose as the ship being out of service. Ditto for the cruise ships. They should be treated as similar to a ship being laid up or put into reserve. Llammakey (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above, particularly Llamma's suggestion that, at best, they should be incorporated into the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Then why the heck does the Nimitz have its entire list of overhauls? Drenchedwaveeidter (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it wasn't addressed at the time. All of the American aircraft carrier articles need to be overhauled. However, due to their importance in American foreign policy/military preparedness, they draw a lot of attention and therefore editors stay away. However, to prevent further damage to the articles Trappist tried to stop what they thought was a bad addition (at least in format). As you see above, there is a need for that info, it just needs to be put in a better format. I encourage you to incorporate it into the prose, and to go further, do the same with the Nimitz article. Llammakey (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I thought that those big articles usually have good formatting, that's why I was following whatever it was saying. Thanks for the information, ill try to improve my formatting. Sorry Drenchedwaveeidter (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The overhaul list was added to USS Nimitz at this edit without comment by an anonymous IP user. That IP user also added similar lists to USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) at this edit (since removed or incorporated into the article prose) and to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower at this edit. That the lists were added and remain/remained in place more-or-less untouched/unnoticed since is not a good reason for their continued retention. An indiscriminate collection of facts (true or not) does not an encyclopedia article make. All such lists should be deleted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

To add just a bit more, sourcing is a problem with these lists. USS Nimitz, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) overhaul lists are/were unsourced.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Three of the Shipping and Shipbuilding Research Trust's websites have vanished. Wear Built Ships (http://sunderlandships.com/), Tees Built Ships (http://teesbuiltships.co.uk/), and Shipping and Shipbuilding (https://www.shippingandshipbuilding.uk/) all now appear on my browser as "Account Suspended". Does any of you know what has gone wrong?

At the time of writing, Tyne Built Ships (https://tynebuiltships.co.uk/) is still online, and so is Scottish Built Ships (https://www.clydeships.co.uk/). Motacilla (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The sites' webmaster is actively addressing with server host. - Davidships (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou. Is the problem related to Internet security? For years, my Internet security software has flagged most of the SSRT's websites as "unsafe". My current secutiry software still does. I have always ignored the warnings, and continued to use all of the SSRT's websites, but I have long wondered what the problem is. Motacilla (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The three affected SSRT sites are all up-and-running again since yesterday - I do not know what the issue was. One related point - it has been my practice when drawing on this kind of source to always ensure that the page is archived at the time, even if not actually adding the archive link to the citation. I know that a good amount of these and similar sites sites is covered by archive.org, but not sure how comprehensive the coverage is. - Davidships (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

When archiving, one of the options is to archive all outlinks. That ensures that all the pages that link to each specific ship (say sister ships, builder lists, etc.) are archived as well. Just an FYI for interested readers. Llammakey (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The MV Mayuree Naree (2007) article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Cathead wwii passenger ships of is defective. Passenger ships are merchant ships. The passenger ships of a country should be categorised as a subset of its merchant ships, but this cathead fails to do so. Please will someone who understands how to edit cathead templates amend this defect? Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Passenger ships can also be military vessels, such as troopships. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking for assistance to resolve a discrepancy in the names of two destroyers. Douro-class destroyer and Antioquia-class destroyer both state that for the two ships of the class sold to Colombia, ARC Caldas was originally named Douro and ARC Antioquia was laid down as Tejo. But the article ARC Antioquia and Template:Douro-class destroyer indicate the opposite. The article ARC Caldas (1933) is silent on the issue. The web reference given indicates that Antioquia was originally Douro. I don't have access to the other reference, Whitley 1988, Destroyers of World War Two to confirm the names are cited correctly. Anyone got a lead on which is correct? Mdewman6 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd trust Whitley on this as his work is kinda sloppy. I've found multiple errors relating to other South American ships in his other books. It would likely be better to trust Conways, which says that Antioquia was Douro / Caldas was Tejo. It's the 1922–46 edition from 1980, page 415. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Very well, I don't have access to Conways either, but I'll take your word for it. I'll go ahead and update articles appropriately and replace Whitley with Conways in a bit. If anyone else has any other thoughts, please add. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the updates. If anyone wants to take a look at the launch dates for these two ships, there are a lot of discrepancies between the various articles linked above. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)