Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

I have just begun some improvements to Invercauld (ship), about the wreck in 1864 of the vessel launched in 1863, including adding an Infobox. There is a lot more that can be added, and there are many published sources, so I have only just begun. However, my question is about the article title. Looking at the website: and searching for Invercauld, there are three ships listed of that name, including the 1863 ship. There may well be other vessels of that name in addition to those three. At present, the only Wikipedia article about a ship named Invercauld is the one linked above. Wikidata has an item for that ship, but also another item for the different Invercauld that was launched in 1874. Should the current article be disambiguated now, or just leave it as-is until such time as an article is needed for one of the other ships named Invercauld ?_Marshelec (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

In anticipation, I would dab it pre-emptively. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I also think that is a reasonable approach. The other two Scottish-built ships were also substantial large vessels, with histories which may well be sufficiently notable - one traded for 27 years before disappearing without trace, also in the Pacific, and the other sunk by submarine gunfire during WW1. There was one other Invercauld, a Humber trawler that served with the Royal Navy in both world wars and was later wrecked in Iceland. But, regardless of whether the 1863 ship is dabbed, a ship list article for Cumbernauld would be useful for readers. - Davidships (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The current article would be better housed at Invercauld (1863 barque) Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Also add a dab page as a hint to add more articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW, I'm fairly certain that my grandfather sailed on the 1891 Invercauld before the Great War. There is a category for her over at Commons. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Landing Ship, Tank was recently stripped of much of its content which was put in LST Mk.1, LST Mk.2 and LST Mk.3. In my view, this has separated elements of a cohesive narrative of how LSTs were developed and used in WW2 (the major use of this sort of vessel). If the article did need splitting (which I dispute), it would have been better to separate it into the LST in WW2 and the LST post WW2. There was no discussion of this on the article talk page that originated from the editor making the changes. A question from me was answered, but the explanation still seems meagre to me.

The creation of three new articles has left their references in the original article, completely unused. With Landing Ship, Tank being based on a smaller number of references, it appears to be more US centric than is warranted. It certainly is poorer for not using some quality references.

Would members of this project be able to take a look at these changes and express an opinion?

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I support the splitting. The old LST article was almost just WW2-era LSTs, so splitting the article up into a focused Mk1, 2, and 3 article was the correct call. The LST article should instead be focused on the ship concept as a whole (such as bulk carrier), which also includes modern and Cold War-era vessels. GGOTCC 20:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I take the view that the vast majority of LSTs that have existed were built in WW2, so that a focus on that war is dictated by the subject. With three separate articles, the story of how this ship type was developed in a short time ceases to be a single cohesive account. The rapid development of an entirely new type of ship in such a short time span is probably the most notable thing about this type of vessel. The next model was, in some cases, built before the predecessor had even been launched.

If a split were needed, it would be much more sensible to do so on a temporal basis, with Landing Ship Tank of WW2 and Landing Ship Tank post WW2.

And we still have the problem of a number of quality references being abandoned in the original article, but unused there and not being utilised in the new articles either. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

So why not have articles for each class of LST and a unified article about the development of LSTs? We can have both. The old LST article had infoboxes for the three classes, which is redundant to understanding the overall type of ship. GGOTCC 22:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps my thinking is driven by the poor quality editing job that was done, with the unified article being stripped of a lot of information that I would expect to be there. If I can get the time, I will have a go at a fix, but I have outstanding, among other things, a complete article rewrite on Square rig, which I have been intending to do for ages (the sources are stacked up next to me right now, but it is a big job). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see your point TIR, but I agree with GGOTCC. Needs to have a hefty section about WWII (development, improvement, deployment) but also about Cold War ships and their use in lower-tier navies and more recently the War in Ukraine where they were used substantially. Llammakey (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

At this edit, Editor Zackmann08 forced {{infobox ship}} to unconditionally display the article title (without parenthetical disambiguation) as the infobox caption; see HMS Decoy (H75). Natural disambiguators are retained in these default infobox captions; see German submarine U-505.

Some long time ago there were several discussions on the topic of infobox captions. I found these long-ago discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 34 § infobox captions
• Template talk:Infobox ship/Archive 5 § Formatting
• Template talk:Infobox ship/Archive 6 § Returning to formatting
• Template talk:Infobox ship/Archive 6 § Infobox caption

As a result of those discussions, this community elected to retain the existing default case of no-infobox-caption unless an article's editors explicitly chose to display the caption. To control infobox caption display we created the parameter |infobox caption= (now |infobox_caption=). That parameter accepts certain keywords or text; see the template documentation for details.

Has this community's opinion of infobox captions changed? Shall the new change be retained or shall it be reverted?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

For transparency, I attempted to get information about why this was being done here but Trappist chose not to actually answer the question on multiple occasions. Virtually every other Infobox on the English Wikipedia has a default Infobox title of {{PAGENAMEBASE}}. Not sure why Infobox ship should be any different, particularly based on discussions that took place well over a decade ago. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Revert. I think these captions are pointless, to be honest. The name of the ship(s) is already within the title of the article itself, and (usually) in bold at the beginning of the lede section. There is no reason to include a second instance of a bold name above the infobox, especially since they also usually carry the name of the vessel. Akaza ^[talk] 20:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Akaza: So based on that we should also remove it from every Infobox on wikipedia... The same can be said about %99.999 of articles that contain an Infobox... The title of the page and the first few sentences of the article always match the title of the Infobox... What makes {{Infobox ship}} unique to every other Infobox? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd apply this principle across the board, not relegated solely to articles covering ships. They offer nothing of value, only unnecessary repetition of info already known to the reader. Perhaps litigating the issue in isolated subprojects (e. g. WP:SHIPS) will lead to a broader change in consensus on the matter. This community is allowed to determine consensus within its scope of interest, as has been done before. Akaza ^[talk] 20:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That argument does not work when it directly violates established MOS... See MOS:INFOBOXNAME which states:

The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with {{PAGENAMEBASE}}) is usually fine. It should not contain a link.

That is pretty cut and dry. Again I am not saying that the {{PAGENAMEBASE}} is required to be used, but ommiting any title, by default, across the board, directly violates established MOS. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

How does it not work? I'm not arguing against its compliance with MOS, but rather that re-examining the matter might be a good idea. This point of policy has been a part of MOS since 2011, by the way, since which numerous changes have been made to how both desktop and mobile pages appear. There is no good reason not to take a look at this issue again, considering the length of time which has elapsed since the last time it was undertaken.

What is your view on this matter @Trappist the monk? Akaza ^[talk] 20:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

My point is that you cannot make an exception for one Infobox because you do not agree with the MOS. If you have an issue with the established MOS, which you are absolutely free to do, then you should initiate a discussion about changing the MOS. As long as the manual of style says that infoboxes should have a title, then it is not appropriate for one WikiProject to decide that the MOS doesn't apply to them. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ships often have multiple names throughout their career and article titles will often need to be disambiguated. Your demands that the infobox has a single massive title does not reflect the reality of the subject. This is in no way an improvement to the articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, not my demand... The demand of the MOS. So based on your argument Nigel Ish there should not be a title on the page since it does not reflect the reality of the subject. Can you please provide an actual example of where there is a single massive title that negatively impacts the page? Also not sure how on earth you find that to be massive but we can agree to disagree on that point. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the the Manual of Style was able to edit templates. I thought that only editors could do that (and therefore take responsibility for their edits). Articles with a subject with multiple names can effectively have multiple titles, and will have appropriate redirects set up and the alternative titles indicated in bold in the lede.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we talk maturely about the issue at hand? Obviously I didn't meant that the MOS could edit templates so not sure why you feel the need to go that route and be so immature. Why not talk about the actual issue? Once again, can you please provide an actual example of where there is a single massive title that negatively impacts the page? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't demand anything. It's general guidance that does have some exceptions. The consensus at this Wikiproject has thus far been to not require captions. If you want to change our minds, you need to convince us of why it makes sense for this topic area. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We are attempting to have a mature conversation about it. Nigel is quite right to take issue with your conduct here, considering your unilateral change to the template, which had previously been hammered out by community consensus. Had you initiated a discussion about this beforehand, that would have been a different matter, and you would have had a chance to recognise the support (or lack thereof) of this change within the project.

Nigel is absolutely correct that an article about a ship with differentiating names might be negatively impacted by the addition of a large, bold title. Casual readers might find unnecessarily distracting, for one. We editors frequently tend to underestimate the way a casual reader might view Wikipedia, and how overwhelming it can be. In some cases, the default rendering can actually serve to the article's detriment; you're telling me users absolutely need to see "German battleship Bismarck" spelled out in bold above the infobox? And claiming a modifiable caption isn't exactly a great argument either. Manually altering every article to remove titles like this eats up an unnecessary amount of time and energy, which could be circumvented by making the captions optional, subject to community consensus. Contrary to your beliefs, MOS is not gospel, and does allow for a lot of wiggle room.

And as I said above, it is a completely unnecessary regurgitation of information already within the body of the article. We know what the article is about, and do not need it spelled out again above the infobox, which contains another version of the info as well. MOS has frequently allowed for deviations, at the discretion of the wikiprojects concerning the pages impacted. This just seems to be yet another case of WP:AINTBROKE.

A case could be made about this being selectively applied. There are pages where its usage isn't as unnecessary (e. g. pages like Hurricane Katrina or The Dark Side of the Moon). But in the cases of maritime articles or even biographies, it is absolutely useless, since the salient info is repeated again a few lines down. WP:SHIPS has functioned perfectly with this system for over a decade, without anyone complaining about it. Akaza ^[talk] 22:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems like @Parsecboy had a similar idea. Akaza ^[talk] 22:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this wiki project or any page. The MOS applies to all pages on wikipedia, not just those that you do not want it to apply to. I came here for a good faith discussion. Clearly not going to get one from people who are acting like children so if you want to violate the MOS with "your" project, go right ahead. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: - you are reminded to focus on the issue at hand and not personalize the dispute. If you continue to insult others, you will find yourself at WP:ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Parsecboy that is what I was trying to do you can lobbing personal attacks at me so I've walked away. Do what you want. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Kindly don't ping me further. I no longer want any part of this discussion. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me try this a different way. I genuinely did try to have a constructive discussion but feel that unfair attacks have been lobbed at me such as obviously sarcastic and unhelpful comments such as I wasn't aware the the Manual of Style was able to edit templates. I thought that only editors could do that (and therefore take responsibility for their edits). That obviously was not what I meant. I've participated in hundreds if not thousands of these discussions. We can disagree, of course, but these sarcastic comments don't serve anyone or anything. Not sure why we can't just honestly and openly discuss our differences of opinion.

@Parsecboy: I find your threat to take me to ANI particularly disheartening as you are, in fact, an admin. Now if my edit was so objectionable, 2 of the other editors (besides myself) involved in this discussion could have already reverted it... Not sure why you haven't. In any case, I genuinely do not think this is a constructive conversation at this point. I am all for disagreement, happens on here all the time. But this seems like a case of multiple editors who are passionate about their WikiProject and are not interested in hearing the opinions of those outside of that project. That is fine.

At this point, I am walking away. I say this respectfully, please do not ping me further. I no longer wish to participate in this volatile and heated discussion. Best of luck. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that this is the discussion that should have occurred before the edit was made. In general, I am in favor of infobox captions but I do mot believe that MOS:INFOBOXNAME makes them compulsory. Were infobox captions compulsory, the first sentence in the quotation from MOS:INFOBOXNAME above would not have used the weak word should but instead, would have used a stronger word like shall or must.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Has anybody created a consolidated reference for all official sources of media that are authorized on Wikipedia? I am thinking sources like governments (and their navies/etc), manufacturers, and other defense industry types. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I have created SS Asia (1907). There is already an article on the page SS Asia, and a redirect on the page SS Asia (1873), which leads to List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes. I suggest that the article on the page "SS Asia" should be moved to "SS Asia (1873)", and the page "SS Asia" should become a "ship index" disambiguation page with links so both "SS Asia (1873)" and "SS Asia (1907)".

As far as I know, my account is not allowed to make this swap. I tried the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests page to submit a request, but I got a red warning message instead. Please will someone with the necessary powers swap these pages? Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please fix Lloyd's Register 1908 (permalink) and Lloyd's Register 1920 (permalink). In §Bibliography (permalink) there are five Lloyd's Register references; none are dated 1908 or 1920.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)