Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

IP 46.64.178.3

Just an FYI to let people know that 46.64.178.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in some weird editing that is reminiscent of the blocked IP 94.193.131.253. Some of you may recall how much trouble the latter caused with their subtle vandalism of hundreds of ship articles. This one seems to be doing the same sort of ting on the same articles. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored all affected articles to their last good state. Any further disruption should be reported to WP:AIV. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I opened an SPI investigation earlier today. But SPI is severely backlogged, so who knows how long that will take. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SS Monroe (1902)

A discussion re the use of Gross Tonnage or Gross Register Tonnage is taking place at talk:SS Monroe (1902). Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Surviving ships

Well, this is a new category created from some work to Template:Surviving ocean going ships, which uses the template to add the category to ship articles. WP:TEMPLATECAT has reasons why this shouldn't be done for mainspace articles, but I have some longstanding-ish concerns over the whole template and category structure anyway. Surviving ocean-going ships seems way too widely defined for a template. This is all ships built since the 1960s essentially that still exist. There are many many many of them, already it would seem too many for a template, and still more that don't have articles. For example, the British National Historic Ships has over 5,000 ships and vessels, virtually all of them over 50 years old, on its registers. The inclusion criteria is not well defined as it is. The name of the category is also extremely vague, and a rename of some sorts would be in order, though I'm not sure we want to group every ship over 50 years old in a single category anyway, let alone a template. I'd thought I'd bring this here for further discussion first, before starting to formalise things with WP:CFD or WP:TFD. Benea (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That category should be deleted, as should fields for "status" in lists or infoboxes for ships. There simply is no way that they can be kept current, particularly with so many ship editors no longer active. We need to concentrate on encyclopedia articles, and not be a blog which would have to be updated on a daily basis to be comprehensive and accurate. Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention on here is a joke and a half. Brad (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the category, but the template was created to document all ships over 50 years old that survive. I will oppose any attempt to delete it. The category provides an opportunity to ensure that all eligible ships are on the template. As 2015 approaches, maybe it is nearly time to expand the scope of the template to cover surviving ships launched between 1961 and 1965 too. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Benea: - re your OP, it's ships built before 1960, and then only ocean going. This is why you won't find vessels like Maud (wherry) on it. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate article

Devastation Turret Class Ship has just appeared courtesy of WP:AFC. The topic is already covered at Devastation-class ironclad, but perhaps some information could be merged in? Benea (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion on Talk:Devastation-class ironclad#Merger proposal is that Devastation Turret Class Ship might be a better title for the merged article. Comments welcome. Benea (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: perhaps you could perform a WP:HISTMERGE? Benea (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never done one,; asked at WP:AN for assistance with this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? I can do it, but they're simple to do and bloody hard to undo, so I'm just making sure. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A histmerge can be requested at WP:SPLICE -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A history merge should not be performed - see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no significant overlapping history, so it can be done if the new article is a rewrite of the old one. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns

Hi all, just letting you know that John has written an op-ed for the Signpost on ships and gendered pronouns. As the editor, I made the final call to publish it, and I'd appreciate your views on the comments page. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

what's the proper dab for Phoenix (Alaska)?

It wasn't an Imperial Russian Navy vessel or I'd use Russian ship Phoenix as per warships....it was owned by the Russian American Company, which was the government of Russian America. Would it still get the "Russian ship" pre-dab, or use Phoenix (1794), as per its date of launch. (see here, page 8].Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix (1794) would be a good title, fitting in with many other ship articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use it then. I've been under the impression that Russian ships get dabbed differently, but maybe that only applies to military ones. "His Imperial Majesty's Ship" (HIMS) you'd think might have been used, in its Russian form, but....

Our Favorite Ships Vandal is Back

His latest IP address is 78.86.173.115. I have reverted his most recent "contributions" but extra eyes would be appreciated. Thanks...-Ad Orientem (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

78.86.173.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Blocked and reverted latest edits. Let me know when s/he reappears. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping Parsecboy Looks like he is back at it... (1).-Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And blocked again, thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping Parsecboy His latest IP with contrib log. Given the track record, I think we can reasonably classify this individual as a persistent unrepentant vandal. To which end I suggest long term blocks whenever they show up. Maybe he will get tired of having to change IPs all the time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

the John Bright (ship)

See Talk:John_Bright_(disambiguation)#John_Bright_.28ship.29_needed and I've changed it on Historical ships in British Columbia from "SS" as I'm reasonably certain it wasn't a steamship but a sailing vessel. Famous wreck and murder case, long in need of an article, not sure what other WP:Ships historians might be able to provide; I'm far from sources available here, other than finding that one link about new evidence in a very old murder case. There's a book mentioned in an inline comment on the historical ships in BC list, also; I once had it, never read it, now at a used bookshop in Vancouver (or was)Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the date, there should be some newspaper coverage. Have you tried a search of the California Digital Nwspaper Collection? Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't find the John Bright but on searching Clo-oose I found material on the Valencia, which was wrecked in the same area. Good resource; similar archives in Canada are pretty much limited to the Globe and Mail's online archive, which is accessible only through universities; other newspaper collections in BC are in hard cover/fiche at Special Collections at the Unis and in the BC and Vancouver archives....the Times-Colonist may have online archives of some kind, I haven't tried there yet; the book on the alleged murders is what would be best...I scanned it only while I had it.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Allision

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

(non-admin closure) Summary: Following a vigorous discussion on the merits, and lack thereof, of the term "allision" two proposals were made. The first failed. The second passed without any dissenting !votes. It is the consensus of the community that the term should be avoided as far as possible. See the proposal and !votes for details. I am treating this as a non-controversial close where the consensus is clear per WP:ANRFC and WP:CLOSE. If there are any questions, concerns or disagreements please drop me a line on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi: A long-term copyeditor on a dynamic IP has raised an objection to the word allision, which they regard as jargon. After some reverting back and forth, SummerPhD added an explanation of the term to Collision and created a redirect; I added additional references and then re-edited the articles in question, plus all occurrences of the verb "allided", to avoid using the term in text but to provide an explanatory link to it because legal sources do use it. The IP editor sees this as an undesirable Easter egg. I have a suspicion it may have increased in frequency of use in recent decades and/or be more widely used in US than British English. The full discussion is at User talk:200.104.240.11#November 2014. Can we get some expert thought on the matter? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, let me just briefly outline why I object to the word.

It is does not exist in normal usage, only appearing in specialist literature, and the average reader will not know the word.
The word "collision" is unambiguous, clear, correct, and widely known and used.

Google ngrams shows that "collision" is used 1000-2000 times more frequently than "allision" in the English language . This does not vary much between American English and British English. While its use appears to have increased in US English, the numbers remain extremely small and consist only of occurrences in specialised literature. Looking at the 10 most recent examples of its use that google books gives me, I see three accident reports, two legal dictionary entries, three other legal documents, and two cases where it appears to be a misspelling of the surname Allison .

I see no possible advantage to using an obscure word only used in the specialist literature, instead of a common normal word. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with this. For what it's worth, the OED lists allision ("The action of striking (something) against or upon something.") as "Now literary and rare", with one 2004 citation and the most recent before that in 1916. I would say that the sense that "collision" implies two bodies with independent motion is now pretty much lost from the language, and we shouldn't try to force it back. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And here I thought we should strive to be accurate in our language use. Snarkiness aside, the word clearly exists and is in use, and is the specific term which references a specific action. I don't see why not to use it; wikilinks specifically exist to guide readers to new terms and concepts. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the reason I reverted a previous "allision" edit and think Yngvadottir got the thing sort of "off the hook" with something as simple as the ship hit the bridge with a link to the arcane word that is indeed rare and not much used outside legalese and probably not much used even in maritime professional works. "Reviving" some near dead words through a link such as is at the moment within that sentence. Festooning an article with "show off" words requiring a reader to divert from the subject to understand what is being discussed is unacceptable practice in anything but school works—and even there I've seen a professor "hit" a writer for doing so. If I recall one wise ole prof advised something along the lines of "show us what you have found and quit showing off with verbose jargon"—but then that was in olden times. So, I too will object to cluttering the article with use of the word as a distraction (and perhaps someone showing off vocabulary) while fully supporting a link to educate those wishing to divert from the main subject. Palmeira (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Allision" is a term used in maritime law and is used by the U.S. Coast Guard to describe certain incidents that occur that have legal ramifications. The Coast Guard is required to investigate allisions that occur in U.S. waters or to U.S. flagged ships regardless of where it happens.^[1] It is a term used in the Code of Federal Regulations that is distinct form "collision". That being said, I can't believe that such a big deal is made over a word. Put the definition in a footnote or link it and move on...if the reader is interested they will look at the footnote or link and if they aren't interested they won't. It is as simple as that and no different from the thousands of footnotes or links that are in Wikipedia articles of all stripes. With all the effort used in this discussion, actual articles could have improved or created. Wikipedia exists to transmit knowledge to the reader; let the reader decide what is important to them. This is a pissing contest between editors that detracts from the business at hand. Personally, I see no reason for the term "allision" to be stricken from any article that finds the need for that term to describe an event; there can't be that many articles that would use the term, so what harm is there? Wikipedia is not going to collapse over the use of a particular word.

[1]
46 CFR 4.03-1: Marine casualty of accident.

Well, don't be too hasty - exploring and finding a way to deal with the issue led me to copyedit several articles yesterday, including supplying a long requested reference. There are many kinds of improvements, not all planned. But as I see it the issue really is what's the best way to deal with the word - whether a note would be better, or whether my/Summer's link solution works. Also, I note that like all but one of the sources I found, your reference is US. Does anyone have information on the status of the word in other parts of the English-speaking world? In other words is this in part an ENGVAR issue? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Point is, there is no need to use the term. Using a barely used specialist term in place of normal English is to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. That is the reason for the term to be stricken. I don't see any need for a note or for a link to anything; I see no reason for the word to be used at all, as it is not normal English but specialised jargon. I've mentioned British English usage several times, Yngvadottir, here and on my talk page: according to google ngrams it is somewhat more commonly used in US English compared to British English but is still vanishingly rare. Further examples of its obscurity: it appears once only in the 450 million words of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, not at all in the 2.5 billion word British National Corpus, not at all in the 100 million word Oxford English Corpus, and once in the 15 million word American National Corpus. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles that use jargon in the explanation of what ever the article's subject is...jargon being defined as language unique to a field of endeavor or expertise. The U.S. Coast Guard makes a distinction between collision and allusion in their regulations and they deal with dozens of cases of either on a daily basis. Do we have to dumb down an article to the lowest common denominator? If the term is linked or footnoted, the reader can decide whether they want to find out what it is...or not. Leave the decision to the reader; it doesn't do any harm, regardless of how obscure the term is. Hint: In U.S. maritime law it is a term used quite commonly. Let it be. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Do we have to dumb down an article to the lowest common denominator?" Nope, that's what Simple Wikipedia is for. Jargon isn't necessarily a bad thing...readers are here to learn, after all. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Writing in normal English is not "dumbing down", and deliberately making articles inaccessible does do harm. Insisting on using a word that is simply not used in the English language seems perverse to me. When writing an article, do you think it's better if a) everyone, or b) hardly anyone understands what you mean when you are describing two objects hitting each other? A fine distinction of meaning may be required in maritime law, but it is not here, and plenty of sources have been provided to show that the word "allision" simply does not exist in normal English. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@200.104.240.11 Perverse? How so? Let's try to remain civil; talk issues and not personalities.Cuprum17 (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Perverse is an adjective meaning "deliberately unreasonable". See for example here. It's approximately 1000 times more common than allision in normal English usage, curiously enough. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone's actions "deliberately unreasonable" is not civil. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am being perfectly civil. Don't try to disrupt a sensible discussion.

We have a link to explain the word and numerous sources that we cite and/or quote that use the word. I see no problem with either a footnote or a link explaining the term. I see no reason to systematically remove the word from Wikipedia any more than "p–n junction" should be removed from Light-emitting diode or "tortious" should be removed from Alcoholism. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The word is not used in normal English, and it is not known to the vast majority of people. This is the reason it should not be used. Your comparisons are poor: both are a huge factor more common in the google ngrams corpus than "allision" is ; and there is certainly no widely known alternative to "p-n junction" that can be used in its place with no loss of meaning. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And I would oppose another attempt to put the technical word into the text for exactly that reason while I would likewise oppose any attempt to remove a link to the word. I read technical maritime material and often follow court cases and I found the use of the word distracting in this context. Long, long ago a very good piece of advice on writing contained: "The goal is to keep readers from pausing to decode your shorthand (or jargon) any more than they must." A writer's question number one is "what is my audience?" with choice of words following. Even our international, English as a second language readers, are likely to understand "the ship hit the bridge" without puzzlement. Then let them learn a new word following the link or reading a footnote. Palmeira (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The articles use the word "allisions" to make a distinction from "collisions". Saying we should go out of our way to obliterate the words existence (and hide that distinction) is quite the camel to swallow. The Coast Guard investigates casualties involving collisions, allisions, or groundings. They investigate "allisions"? What's that? Can't be important, I'll just remove it. How about explaining the meaning so as not to change the meaning. Leaving out "allisions", in this case, changes the meaning -- whether you like the word or not. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There may be a need, in maritime legal documents, to make a fine distinction based on which objects were moving at the time of a collision, and in those documents it may be appropriate to use specialised jargon. In normal English, no such distinction exists, and whether one or both objects are moving, it's a collision. I refer you again to the examples from the various corpora. Attempting to change the way English is used through the medium of Wikipedia is not appropriate or acceptable. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication anyone is attempting to change the way English is used. You, I assume, are not trying to change the meaning in the Coast Guard article. However, your change did change the meaning. (Please discuss content, not editors.) I refer you to Collision: "A collision is an isolated event in which two or more moving bodies (colliding bodies) exert forces on each other for a relatively short time." That some readers may not make a distinction between a collision and an allision does nothing for the simple fact that reducing "collisions, allisions and groundings" to "collisions and groundings" changes the meaning. As previously discussed, the distinction exists for a reason (separating who investigates collisions vs. who investigates allisions). Your change says that distinction is in effect for the Coast Guard, incorrectly stating they investigate collisions but do not investigate allisions. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It did not change the meaning. In normal English, two objects impacting each other is a collision, regardless of how many of them are moving. As I have shown repeatedly, the word "allision" does not exist outside specialised literature, and so by bizarrely insisting on its use in a general encyclopaedia, you are indeed trying to change the way English is used. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to do any such thing. Discuss content not editors.

You have removed "allisions" because your search of books doesn't show it being used as often as "collisions" in those books. A modest proposal: Let's replace "Justine Bieber" with "collision" because of my search. Crazy? Yes. Equally crazy would be an edit to change the definition at collision so the Coast Guard article would be correct. I suggest that we say what the sources say, giving links to explain those pesky words we might not understand. I'm like that. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to change the way the English language is used. You are trying to force a word that is obsolete back into use. As for the rest of what you've just written, I can only say, WTF? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to do any such thing. I am trying to show that you misunderstand the Ngram viewer, which shows zero uses of "Justine Bieber" who, I assure you, is not the least bit obscure. I am also trying to focus the discussion on content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's remarkable that you accuse me of misunderstanding ngrams when you have a) misspelled the search term you wished to use, b) evidently failed to realise that the corpus only covers years to 2008, when the person you refer to had yet to release a single, and c) utterly and bizarrely missed the point of the exercise anyway. If you seriously think you were pointing out something relevant, I actually pity you. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My 2¢. The term in question is a perfectly legitimate part of the English language. It appears to be the more correct term. It is the term employed by various maritime agencies and entities. We are not talking about sentences written in archaic English, which would be a problem. I think any suggestion that using a technical term somehow makes the encyclopedia inaccessible is dubious at best. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not perfectly legitimate. It is obsolete. Two uses in over 3 billion words of English language corpora is pretty unambiguous. Nor is it the more correct term. "Collision" means two or more objects hitting each other, and there is no distinction in normal English based on how many objects are moving. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You have described allision as obsolete and collision as unambiguous. Neither of these are correct. Few contexts need to make the distinction and so the two meanings are generally overlapped, but in the specific field of marine navigation the two meanings are significant. That field thus chooses to see them as distinct, uses both terms in their narrow and specific senses, and continues to do so today.

WP does not dumb down 'jargon' to meet a populist simplicity, it prioritises accuracy instead. We should thus continue with allision, with suitable explanation within the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obsolete. See here. Also see the four corpora I linked to above, which contain over 3 billion words in total, and in which the word occurs just two times. Whether something strikes something else at 30 degrees or whether it strikes it at 45 degrees, the word is still "collision", and if the angle is important then it has to be stated. Similarly, whether something strikes something stationary or moving, the word is still "collision", and if the motion of the object being hit is important, then it has to be stated. There is no possible reason to use obsolete words instead of normal English. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As I explained before, the first definition is obsolete. The word is not. The sources in the Coast Guard article state that the motion is meaningful by using two distinct words, collision and allision. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The word appears just twice in four corpora of over three billion words. It is utterly obsolete, and the only place it is used outside of specialist literature is, in fact, here on Wikipedia. You must feel very pleased with yourself. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

It is proposed that the term "allide" and any legitimate variation thereof shall be acceptable for use in articles relating to ships and maritime subjects, provided that the term is technically correct and that its use is supported by the relevant sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

The word is obsolete except in maritime law. This is a general encyclopaedia, and there is a normal English word that is 100% accurate that should be used instead. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Collision says it is not accurate. The Coast Guard clearly makes the distinction. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing an article that you've edited in support of a claim that you're making is not sensible. Every dictionary I've consulted says that it is accurate. Maritime law may require jargon to be used to make a fine distinction. A general encyclopaedia does not. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not referring to the unchallenged addition I made to the article. I am referring to the definition in the lede which specifies "two or more moving bodies", as it has for as far back as I looked (the most recent 250 edits, over 5 years).

The dictionary definition that you've cited previously makes the distinction. It's the first result for Googling "define:allision": "1 obsolete : the action of dashing against or striking upon. 2 : the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collision." (Yes, the first definition is obsolete.) First result Googling "define:collision": "an instance of one moving object or person striking violently against another." (That's one moving object striking another moving object.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obsolete. See the corpora. Some vague wording in a wikipedia article does not trump reality. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've quoted the very definition you used as your source for the "obsolete" claim. You seem to have misunderstood it. The first definition is obsolete. The second definition directly states that it is not the same as a collision. In saying that "every dictionary" you've consulted backs you up, you either do not understand what I am saying, disagree with what I am saying or are now dismissing the source you originally cited. Is it one of these or is there some other explanation? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The word is obsolete. See the corpora. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC):

Speaking of jargon, the word "corpora" seems a little odd for everyday usage doesn't it? I would venture that less than one in ten thousand has ever heard it spoken or glanced upon it in a book or screen... You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I could certainly use "large compilations of English text" if you prefer. The word "corpora" is little used, it's true, and mostly in specialised contexts. That's why I'm using it here, in a linguistic discussion about whether a word is obsolete or not, and not in an article. Also, it's hundreds of times more frequently used than "allision". .

If I sound like a broken record, maybe it's because people keep on making false claims that need correcting. Not sure what else to do when people state something in direct contradiction to incontestable facts, except to restate those facts. The word "allision" only exists in specialised usage, and is rare almost to the point of non-existence in normal usage, and yet people here insist that they can "consider" it to be neither jargon nor obsolete. This determination to ignore facts seems very strange to me. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

For reasons stated in my posts in the above discussion. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
~~Per my comment in the above discussion.~~-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Striking my !vote out of deference to what appears to be a majority opposed and supporting 2nd proposal. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As discussed to death, above. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already made my position well known. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The term is not in common usage outside of nautical contexts. But this is WikiProject Ships. The term need not be used every time it could be used. But it probably should be used in contexts where it may be contrasted with collision.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because a word is not in everyday usage, that does not mean it is either obsolete or jargon. This is an encyclopedia, where people come to learn things. We should not be in the business of unnecessarily simplifying articles for the benefit of those who are afraid of widening their vocabulary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is only used in specialist literature -- it is jargon. It does not exist in general usage -- it is obsolete. You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  - I consider it neither jargon nor obsolete. Overuse and inappropriate use of any word should be avoided, but usage of a lower quality replacement when a specific word is available is not acceptable, in my view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    - "Jargon", from the OED: " Applied contemptuously to any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons, as the language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession." That is the sense in which the IP and others, including me, are using that word, and that is what "allision" is here. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      - I do not wish to drag this out, but I disagree with you, as others do. If the terminology of a science or art does not belong in an encyclopedia, then I wonder what kind of encyclopedia we are trying to build. I have already argued against its overuse and inappropriate use, as people in the 'oppose' section have also done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
        Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
        I'm familiar with it. In my opinion, no "more common alternative" will suffice in many cases, not just this one, as has been explained by others. People are allowed to disagree, as I understand it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        
        Actually, no-one has explained why it could be so important to specify whether the ship hit something moving or stationary that an obsolete word that 99% of readers would have to look up should be used to make it clear. Perhaps you could find an article where the word "allide" is currently used, and explain why "collide" could not be used in its place. Personally I find it impossible to imagine any circumstance in which it could be sensible to prefer the obsolete word to the common one. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        Maybe we should just disagree, or you could ask questions in the general discussion section instead of continuing to ask me questions personally. I'm not sure why you're not pressing the matter with anyone else in this section. I didn't have to look the word up, and that's largely why I posted here. Call me a smartass if you like, but I simply don't think the word is that obscure. I grew up in a docks town and I'd say I know a lot of people who know what the word means, and the difference between it and "collide". I think it's better if we don't spend our precious time arguing the toss. This is my view and I am not obliged to perpetually justify my views to you, or anyone else. It's really OK if we disagree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        I can assure you that most people do not live in dock towns where this term might be more widely used (or even that it's used in dock towns aside from where you grew up) - your assertion is a classic anecdotal fallacy. To put another way, what evidence can you point to that suggests "allision" is a commonly-used word in non-specialist discussions? Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        I don't need to be assured of that fact, obviously, and I reject your analysis of my assertion. I was unaware that my support of this proposal would result in an inquisition to which nobody else would be subjected. I have never said that "allision" is a commonly-used word in non-specialist discussions; I do not consider all encyclopedia articles about shipping to be non-specialist. If we are getting to a point where we are forced to use words that everybody understands, we can all give up trying to build a useful encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        You said in your first post that the word is not jargon, which by definition means that it is used outside of non-specialist areas. As for the "inquisition", you are the only person in the support column who did not participate in the lengthy discussion above - hence the discussion here. Strawmans and slippery slopes aside, the point is not to dumb down our language, but to write in a clear and concise manner. Saying "ship X struck object Y" is infinitely better than "ship X allided with object Y" (which would either require a link to the relevant section in collision or wiktionary, or a lengthy footnote such as that supplied by Palmiera in the article that started this whole debate). For one, it's shorter and as a general rule, all other things being equal shorter prose is better prose, and B: it does not force the reader to go to a second location to figure out what the hell we're talking about. We do not need to go out of our way to make things more difficult to understand. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        You're not saying anything to change my mind. Waffle aside, I disagree very strongly with your idea that shorter prose is better prose; in my opinion that is an extremely poor "general rule" to maintain if we want an encyclopedia with any integrity. We also disagree on what constitutes a "clear and concise manner", if it is believed that replacing a word with one that doesn't really mean the same thing is acceptable. I also understand that an explanation can be provided very straightforwardly for anyone not familiar with the word. In any case, rather than trawl through endless badinage here, I direct you towards my response to the second proposal, and I consider this exchange to be over. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The verb "allide" is pure avoidable jargon. On the other hand I think we need to use the noun "allision" on occasion, to reflect sources - always providing either a link or a note. But we should minimise its use and never use it when the sources we are citing don't. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Palmiera's statement above (specifically, this line: "words requiring a reader to divert from the subject to understand what is being discussed is unacceptable practice") pretty much sums up my views on the matter. We are writing for a general audience, which requires that we avoid jargon as much as possible, and in this case, "collision" is a perfectly suitable replacement. I'm really rather surprised that no one has thought to check the MOS section on jargon, which specifically discourages using "specialized words simply to teach them to the reader" and "excessive wikilinking" of jargon. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"Allide" is too jargony for my taste. "Allision" is acceptable if the sources use it but should be linked, explained, whatever. That's not "dumbing down"--it's writing an encyclopedia for a broad readership while affording the opportunity to dig deeper. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, with qualification. A very good piece of advice from long ago, early 1970s, and from a very high level with military and legal authority trying to eradicate pretentious gobbledygook by people often trying to show off their "education"—usually less than they pretended or evidenced—noted ". . . the overuse of specialized terms is false economy. Avoid your job's shorthand with outsiders, and use it no more than you must with insiders." Note that the article in which this whole tempest in a teapot is raging is about a pilot's association—not about allisions, collisions, groundings or legal results. It is about the San Francisco Bar Pilots! It would be a distraction in the text itself there and only serve to "enhance" some egotistic, verbal exhibitionism by an "editor" as opposed to use of plain English and a graceful introduction to the term through a footnote. That said, and I do say it with some malice toward those that would obfuscate one subject with esoteric terms (I could spend many an hour and gain "edit count" going through general nautical/maritime articles introducing precise, correct and absolutely non-enlightening arcane and esoteric terms to the obfuscation of real information), the word "allision" is absolutely acceptable in articles dealing with the specifics of such incidents, providing there is a link or footnote to the definition and usage. In a general article about a pilot's association "allision" is pretentious gobbledygook. In a discussion of a specific incident or legal case it is pertinent. Palmeira (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Other view(s)

Qualified support, but closer to oppose. It is perfectly appropriate to use it (with explanation or link) in the context of admiralty law. But general articles would indicate the use of more general terms. We should not attempt to make a general rule here because of one dispute over usage. We do not need a list of banned or permitted terms. Kablammo (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is my view as well. Personally, I will not use the term in the articles I write, but if someone later edits them because allision describes the incident better than collision, I won't revert because of potential obsolescence of the word. Tupsumato (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps no one noticed but I edited the article in question with such a compromise. There is a lot of typing going on here over what I think is a pretty easy approach that scratches both itches. I will however oppose any effort to clutter general audience articles with specialized terms requiring most readers to divert from the main topic for esoteric vocabulary development. Palmeira (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Note that I used the title of an official, technical and legalistic investigation report to introduce the term into the article by means of a reference that uses the word while using a perfectly good "plain English" word in the text itself:

Commandant, United States Coast Guard (2 March 2009), Report of Investigation into the Allision of the COSCO Busan With the Delta Tower of the San Francisco—Oakland Bay Bridge in San Francisco Bay on November 7, 2007 (PDF), United States Coast Guard{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Brad, the reason I used the citation format was to get the full title using the word in question into the text here. Palmeira (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Qualified support: Similar to Kablammo I believe that there are contexts where it makes sense and others where it doesn't. I would tend to follow the standard Wikipedia practice of letting reliable sources be our guide. If the citations in the article are to reliable sources that use "allision", use "allision". Otherwise, stick with "collision" or whatever term the reliable sources use. If there aren't reliable sources, why is it in the article in the first place? I would make sure to bold, underline, and put big flashing lights around the "that its use is supported by the relevant sources" section of the proposal, perhaps even modifying it to read "that the term is used by the relevant sources" to remove ambiguity. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)'

I undid your removal of my note in the subject article. The word is used in the reference title I added, the note follows the reference cite in the text and I think perfectly appropriate. Your removal seems needless and, shall I say, with some sort of mild "malice" as its presence does nothing to detract from the article. I've got better things to do than "edit war" but perhaps you need to think again. Palmeira (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not using either word in the article, but then inserting a note that basically says "I should've used allision here but I didn't" isn't the way to go and gives the appearance that you are thumbing your nose at this process (although I'm sure that that's not your intention). While I understand the distinction between allision and collision (the "co" implying both parties hit each other) and support not using misleading terminology, the term "struck" as used in the article is fine and doesn't imply that both objects are moving and doesn't need an explanatory note, especially when the note just describes the distinction between two words that are never used in the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The note follows the citation, the single citation pertaining to the incident that is actually peripheral to the subject. That title uses the word so that readers just might want a clarification. Your removal actually seems to be the "thumbing your nose at this process" as that cite and associated note have damn little to do with "the process" here. I'm done with this tempest in a teapot so do whatever you want. A lot of time that could be used to constructively add to information on this site is being wasted over a nit. Palmeira (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would use "collide/collision", but if an editor chooses to use "allide/allision", then that's fine. In the latter case, a link to wiktionary should be provided. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

But the word simply doesn't exist outside of specialised literature. The MOS specifically says "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do". Why would you use a word so rare as to be virtually non-existent, in place of a word that every reader will know? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrrgh! Ok, a moment, partly because I think it applies across Wikipedia. Personally I'd go for X struck Y rather than introdcucing an obscure, esoteric term found largely in legalistic arguments and in USCG documents not influenced by such things as the old CNO "Just Plain English" advisory/directive I quoted before (I keep the thing handy in my desk to remind me, though I often fail). Some bureaucracies are armor plated against "Just Plain English" (Navy largely didn't listen!) and continue to engage in gobbledygook. Law is a bastion of esoteric and sometimes unnecessary archaic language—in some places it still comes out wigged! Repeated attempts at sanity from "on high" have mixed results in bureaucracies elsewhere, but I treasure them. I see zero advantage in using, resurrecting or "popularizing" the precise but really unnecessary term for a moving object striking a stationary one when "X struck Y" does the job. Hell, even a judge in wig or robe or jury could get that clearly! (Imagine a jury of "peers" hearing "allision"!) Now, when the blasted references (Thanks Ahecht) force the term I've no problem noting the fact or even educating the reader—though I'll be damned if I'll otherwise perpetuate arcane, esoteric language when we have a perfectly good alternative. Finally, bluntly, articles are to inform on topic—not show off one's vocabulary! Whether multiple advanced degree or degreeless editor or expert the article is not enhanced by displays of personal experise with language. KISS applies. Palmeira (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to add even more text to an extraordinary amount of discussion about something so trivial, I really do. But how could a reference "force" the term? We're talking about ships hitting things - in normal English, colliding with things. If a source happens to use specialist jargon to say that, why would that mean we should also use the specialist jargon? I would not dream of using "naris" instead of "nostril", for example, even if citing a fact to a medical journal that only used the specialised medical term. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

2nd Proposal

Background

Following a reasonable period for discussion and !voting there appears to be no consensus in favor of the first proposal, and indeed there is arguably a weak consensus against it. In the interest of bringing to a close a debate that has already reached lengths that seems to me to be difficult to justify given the topic, often with the same points being repeated, I respectfully offer the following alternative proposal.

Proposal

It is proposed that the term "allision" and any variation thereof should be employed in articles as sparingly as reasonably possible. Examples of such justified use might include situations where a direct quote from sources may require it, or alternative terms and phrases would for some specific reason be inappropriate in the given case. Examples of alternative words and phrases that should be considered include, but are not limited to, struck, hit, rammed, bumped, collided, crashed into etc. In the event that some form of the word allision needs to be employed, an appropriate link to the definition should be included. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

After a a couple weeks of vigorous discussion and !voting this appears to be a candidate for a non-controversial close. My reading is that the first proposal has failed and the second has passed without dissent. Are there any objections? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

As before for the same reasons I have stated before with the caveat that it should either be footnoted in the article or linked to an article that would define it in contrast to the word "collision". Legally there is a difference between "collision" and "allision", so much so that the Coast Guard distinguishes between them in marine casualty reports which could be the basis for a reference used in an ship article. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Where you have as sparingly as reasonably possible, I'd prefer only when strictly necessary. But still, it sounds sensible. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Reluctantly. I prefer the original proposal, but as I noted above there is clearly limited support for that. It seems there is a rough majority that is hostile to the word and in the end this debate has dragged on long enough. It's time to wrap this up and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Likewise, reluctantly. In the interests of a conclusion to this, I support this second proposal on the proviso that the word is not banned, and can be used where no satisfactory alternative is available. I maintain that opposition to words like this one is not conducive to a quality encyclopedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This sounds good to me - it bows to the sources, and thanks to SummerPhD we now have a (sourced) explanation to link to, which I view as far better than linking to Wiktionary. When I was rewriting these, I used verbs used in the sources - and avoided using the verb "to impact". But I must caution against using "ram" unless there was deliberate purpose - I've been criticised for that. And I have not encountered any source using the verb "allide", which I think should be buried with a stake through its heart. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yngvadottir, you're not looking in the right place! Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  - @Mjroots: Not only does that author use "to" when he means "too", the site uses the wrong flags for at least half a dozen of its Google translate links, with hilarious results. So with all due respect, its accommodating the draugr does not persuade me to do so. '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Support, per 200.104.240.11's suggestion for wording. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Support. Let us elide (or hide) allide, unless anything else would mean details slide aside. (Or something like that. It's late) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Support in general. I think it should be used very infrequently if at all. I've never heard it til now, and I've been around the track, have a good general purpose vocabulary... By all means this would be a fine word to use a lot in a specialized wiki written by and for admiralty law practitioners and such, though. However, I don't want to completely tie the hands of other editors or overrule their judgement. Use if if you need it, but define it in place please: I do disagree with "an appropriate link to the definition should be included" and would rather "a definition should follow the first use in an article". That is, rather than "According to the statement, the boat collided with a tugboat, then allided with the dock" I would prefer to see "According to the statement, the boat collided with a tugboat, then allided (a term of maritime law meaning collision with a stationary object) with the dock" or something. (I myself would write "According to the statement, the boat collided with a tugboat, then ran into the dock" or something (even though that would mean "translating" the term presumably used in the statement referred to, which is IMO is fine since we're not doing a direct quote), but here we are dealing with editors who feel duty-bound to introduce obscure terms, for whatever reason -- and there may be good reasons in some rare cases -- and how best to handle those situations.)

Reason for defining the term in place rather than just linking to it being that, to the extent possible, hyperlinks are best used for enrichment, not basic ability to read the article. Readers are invited to leave the article to deepen their understanding of some term. Readers should not be required to leave the article to be able to read it -- that is a very bumpy and jumpy and distracting way to read an article, and a less-than-excellent way to write one.

For some articles -- advanced math and physics and other scientific subjects, for instance -- it's necessary to assume a somewhat advanced vocabulary, and if you don't have it you're going to have to do a fair amount of jumping-off-the-page to get up to speed on basic concepts. This should not be required for a description of a boat bumping into something.

(For terms which most or at least many of the readers might already know the term, a hyperlink might be OK -- this being a compromise to provide the smoothest experience for the greatest number of readers. This does not apply to extremely obscure terms which almost all, or at least very many, readers will have to look up, which I think "allision/allided" falls under.) Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. As I have been saying all along: use plain English unless it is necessary to do otherwise. Thank you Herostratus, some excellent points. Palmeira (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. I am a master mariner with 29 years at sea and an above-average vocabulary, and I have never heard of this word. When a ship comes up hard against any object, floating or not, accidentally, it is called a collision. If it does so deliberately, through an act of war or piracy, it is called ramming. Using this ancient word is pure showing off. Rumiton (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support with qualification As a former naval officer and someone who has had a deep and abiding interest in things maritime for over 40 years, I have never heard of this word. I support the proposal but suggest the amendment that the only acceptable usage of the word is when used in a direct quote. There are simply no circumstances in which' when writing an article, that other words cannot be used to describe any situation (for which "allid" might putatively be used) and which would therefore be understood by all readers, not just a select few trying to demonstrate their cleverness by using an obscure and arcane term. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Support As per above. As a yachtsman, I have never run across this word in my 60+ years. IMO "allide" ranks right up there with "behooves". Regards, Aloha27 talk 11:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

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

British Columbia Forest Service Vessel Squadron

Putting articles of eponymous categories in parent cat

Fall back on Wikidata for Ship class

Hi everyone, I had enhanced {{Infobox ship characteristics}} to fall back on the Wikidata ship class property (see d:Property talk:P289) if ever the "Ship class" field of that template is not supplied. These changes were reverted by Trappist the monk who requested me to discuss this over here first. My changes were:

I tested with Costa Serena and it nicely provided a replacement value of Concordia-class cruise ship, using wikidata info from d:Costa Serena. I carefully tested the change with the sandbox template.

I believe this would be a plus for all ships whose class is not supplied; WD has a lot of such info, provided by users of other languages. If you people believe it is worth it, simply restore my change. Laddo (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are 692 enwiki articles with "ship class" set on the corresponding Wikidata item (and another ~220 with the property but no enwiki article) - so it's unlikely to affect many articles just yet, but may as well experiment with it on a small scale! Andrew Gray (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Editor Laddo's edit for these reasons:

Only one parameter changed; there are lots of parameters in the four templates used in a ship infobox. What about the rest?
What about proper formatting? If the template is going to pluck a value(s) from Wikidata, how do these values get their proper formatting?
d:Property talk:P289 is being considered for deletion. Hardly seems worth having if it might be deleted.
I keep a weather eye on this talk page. Why is it that we haven't heard from Wikidata about ship-type data until now? There is expertise here that could benefit Wikidata.
<rant>This last point is one of my pet peeves about Wikidata. The reason that we use named parameters in our templates is so that humans can understand the purpose of the parameter. We have |Ship name= and |Ship commissioned= and |Ship length= and |Ship class= and a whole raft of other parameter names that convey meaning to humans. Not so with Wikidata. Without we have some sort of dictionary, P289 is meaningless and that is a barrier to its use that must, must be changed.</rant>

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comments indeed, I was curious about the rationale behind the revert. I'm primarily Wikidatian, ended up changing this template because, indeed, there is a debate about the deletion of the WD property ship class (again!) and I was surprised that such a clearly specialized attribute was not already in use; I was wondering whether it was infeasible or if you guys were simply unaware of such possibilities. I was happy to see it was possible.

As for Trappist the monk points:

It was merely an initial step; this template is owned by WP and you could do further improvements yourselves, once there is an example;
Not sure I understand what's wrong with the formatting: it's a plain string after all. At this point I was not trying to mimic {{Sclass}} functionality;
As stated on the deletion discussion, I'm trying to prevent deletion of that property... Feel free to volunteer your opinion over there;
d:Wikidata:WikiProject Ships has been dormant for a while, I was the last one actually devoting efforts to organize and fix data errors. The initial set of properties related to ships was proposed based on your infoboxes, I guess, but there is little communication with various WPs: a) no formal scheme for Wikiprojects to communicate, and b) Wikidata is not yet ready to supply all infobox values, since numerical values with units are not yet available, and c) obviously few contributors participating in both WP and WD.
Each WD property is pretty clearly documented on its talk page - have a look at those ones. WD should shortly/finally support properties on properties, and one of them could provide usage and detailed description that could eventually be used by infoboxes as tooltips or whatever. The sad thing is that properties that you guys find relevant (such as |Ship type= and |Ship class=) may get deleted because they sound redundant with others (like "instance of" "Concordia-class cruise ship") from a purely ontological perspective.

Hope this clarifies my actions. Laddo (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So the idea is that a wikipedia could just stick an infobox on an article without filling in most all of the parameters, and the template would suck the contents off the wikidata? What if the wikidata differs? hypothetical, on ship class alone, I have a ship which author A puts as a Foo-class battleship, B says it looks like a Foo but wasn't. Since the sources disagree, an editor leaves |ship class= empty. However, as a wikidata editor has the book by A, they fill in Foo-class, and that is what is displayed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A point I often bring up when discussing ship classes is that not every ship series has an established class name. While most naval ships belong to a class (I tend to disagree when it comes to single-vessel classes), in case of civilian ships "classes" are not that common (well, except maybe in the cruise industry). I've seen instances of editors "inventing" class names, typically after the first vessel of the series, even though such class names are not used anywhere outside Wikipedia. So, do we here at WP:SHIPS have control over this if class data is taken from another database where editors may have a different view on things? Tupsumato (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added Editor Laddo's Wikidata change to {{Infobox ship characteristics/sandbox}}. You can experiment with it by changing a ship's infobox to use the sandbox version and then view the effects using the Show preview button.

The way that Editor Laddo's edit is written, {{Infobox ship characteristics}} will insert the Wikidata only if |Ship class= is empty. The edit doesn't give editors a way to explicitly tell the template to ignore the Wikidata value if it's wrong. This can be fixed, perhaps by testing for a special keyword like 'none'.

@Laddo:

Understood; we are at early days still
The infobox parameter is labeled Class & type when the template is rendered. Very often editors use one of the four {{sclass}} templates to format the value for this field. Ship type is 'aircraft carrier', submarine, 'cruise ship', tugboat', etc. The class name may be the name of a ship in the class (often the lead ship), in which case the class name is italicized, or it may be named on some common theme, trees, flowers, Shakespeare plays, etc., in which case the class name is not italicized. The experiment that I did, using the method described above, was at USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) where Wikidata returned the string Benjamin Franklin-class submarine which should be Benjamin Franklin-class submarine. You will say that it isn't the province of Wikidata to do formatting, and I agree. But what we have here is a combination of two things into a single thing which the template must then separate in order to properly render.
I will.
Yeah, communication between projects is another barrier that WMF needs to fix. Editors here should read through d:Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties.
Documentation on a talk page? Really? Surely, that isn't the proper place to put documentation? I would dispute the notion that each WD property is pretty clearly documented. Looking at d:Property:P289, it seems rather cryptic to me, but understandable. It's similar to the cryptic-documentation problem that occurs when software developers write user documentation for users who aren't technically savvy. This is not an indictment, simply an observation; I struggle to clearly document changes I make to Module:Citation/CS1 and wish that I had a technical writer who could translate what I've written into something that a normal human can easily understand.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A few answers/clarifications:

Wikidata is meant to provide a complete set of characteristics of each "item" (say, a specific ship) to all Wikipedias, whatever their language, so that even a small-scale WP could have access to the complete info; there are even some discussions to provide the best available infoboxes from a common repository, in a language independent form;
Indeed, each ship class should bear a "short name" property (d:Property:P743). I will do that :) One upcoming WD development aims at allowing access to property values of items linked to a target item, e.g. from Costa Serena ==> ship class ==> Concordia-class cruise ship ==> short name ==> "Concordia"... and then it can be formatted independently from the remainder of the class label;
A WD team is actively working at supporting edits to Wikidata properties directly from a change in a WP infobox;
WD properties may bear multiple values, that may be ranked with "preferred", "normal" or "deprecated". The API accessing a given property value considers ranks and ordering, may also check reference/source, etc. Of course there are debates about some properties of some items, these aspects are discussed on talk pages until agreement is reached, as for any WP article;
Providing an infobox field value that would prevent automatic use of the WD property? interesting, might be worth some experimentation, like supplying "" as the value, or   or whatever;
You may well use a visible sign, in the infobox, that will indicate that the value displayed is imported from WP: color, "[WD]", imported from Wikidata, etc... This infobox is yours :)
I have just proposed, at WD, a new property "Definition" that would spell out in plain & simple text what each property is for; that new property on property would be accessible remotely using the standard API, and could be shown somehow directly from the WP infobox (e.g. in a tooltip pop-up, from a "?"...)

Again, my change was to be a preliminary step. We know that it might take another year or two before WD is fully usable; moreover, it currently supplies 50 million property values on 12 million items, thus an average of 4 infos per subject... Looking at your ship infoboxes, it's pretty clear that we are pretty far from fully supporting what you guys need... I still hope I made you more aware of the purpose and long-term objective. Laddo (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it not true that a ship class (Nimitz, Dreadnought, Concordia, Flower, etc) is just a name that is used to group individual ships of specific types (aircraft carrier, battleship, cruise ship, corvette, etc)? Is it not also true that a specific ship need not belong to any class? If the foregoing are true then what I perceive to be the intent of this property P289 is incorrect because it combines class name and ship type into a single value when the two should be kept separate and only be combined at the point of use.

Is it safe to update wikidata from a change to an infobox? If a vandal changes one infobox in one wiki then the vandalism is contained in that page. If wikidata automatically updates as the result of such a change then that vandalism could propagate to multiple pages in the wiki as well as multiple pages in all other wikis using the wikidata.

I think that the mechanism to prevent an infobox from using the value in wikidata is something that belongs in the infobox. For {{infobox ship characteristics}} and the other ship infobox templates, if the value is left blank then the associated field and its label are not displayed. I think that this is a common infobox characteristic not limited to the ship infoboxes. Setting the parameter to any value shows a label with the value even if that value is  . This is why I proposed that parameters that use Wikidata allow for the none keyword so that the template treats the parameter as empty. If wikidata pursue the update from a change to an infobox, this keyword should be ignored.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your new "Definition" property. Leaving that aside, the notion of tooltips is problematic for accessibility reasons and enwiki's Manual of Style expressly proscribes their use, which see.

I understand that your change was preliminary. I am not attacking you. As evidenced by the dearth of comment on this topic by other editors, I suggest that the topic is one that they do not understand (I don't), that the unique jargon and concepts of database management are a barrier to necessary understanding and therefore participation. I suspect that this same is true for the editors at wikidata with regards to the unique jargon and concepts of ships.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk:, I implemented changes that you indicated necessary in {{Infobox_ship_characteristics/sandbox}}:

Supported "none" keyword as ship class, that allows preventing displaying replacement info from Wikidata if no ship class is provided in the Infobox;
Added a small Wikidata symbol (with hyperlink to the matching source Wikidata item) to highlight an imported value;
used clearer syntax {{#property:ship class}} instead of {{#property:P289}}.

I would appreciate if you could let me give it another try; as long as it's hidden in the sandbox, no one is exposed to its effects. I agree with you that we get few comments because few understand what all this is about.

For future use, I added WD property "short name" to all WD ship class items: it shall be soon possible to get it from WP with {{#property:short name|of={{#property:ship class}}}}.

On the more philosophical side:

the somewhat systemic combination of the ship type into the ship class definition was imported from WP itself, through articles such as Concordia-class cruise ship, I guess. Splitting these is beyond my reach;
the propagation of WD data to a large number of WPs has both valuable and risky sides; I believe that there are already plans for buffering mechanisms... but again I don't worry too much with those for the moment.
OK not tooltip :) but I'm sure it will be useful to better document WD properties, no matter what.

Laddo (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, saw and tested those changes. Yes, {{#property:ship class}}, much more better! Is there a reason why you used both {{#property:P289}} and {{#property:ship class}}? There is something at d:Property:P289 but not at d:Property:ship class; why not? How does that work?

Just so we're clear, I did not make any suggestions regarding the use of icons. One or two in an entire infobox is one thing but were each field marked with an icon then I think that is inappropriate. If correct formatting of the displayed text is not possible from {{#property:ship class}} perhaps it is best to not apply formatting at all until we can solve that issue.

I do not own this template. If you take the sandbox live, what would you learn that you don't already know? If you do take it live, perhaps you should include a maintenance category so that you can easily find those articles that are using data from Wikidata.

I think there is still a misunderstanding about what defines a ship class. I attempted to get at that essence in a previous post. As rendered in the ship info boxes, the value for field 'Class & type:' is the concatenation of those two separate things in the template parameter |Ship class=. Editors currently do this concatenation either by directly writing it with appropriate styling: [[Benjamin Franklin-class submarine|''Benjamin Franklin''-class submarine]] or by using one of the sclass templates: {{Sclass|Benjamin Franklin|submarine|1}}. It seems to me that for this example, {{#property:ship class}} should return Benjamin Franklin and another property, perhaps {{#property:ship type}}, should return submarine.

There is still an issue of presentation. There has to be a way for an editor to specify how the class name is styled. An editor might write |Ship class={{Sclass|{{#property:ship class}}|{{#property:ship type}}|1}} but that's ugly so I suspect that editors would reject it in favor of an sclass template with plain text. We could, I suppose, create (yet) another parameter |Ship class style= that would tell the template code how to style the ship class name; we could add a key word, perhaps like this: |Ship class=ital so that the template would know to fetch data from Wikidata and format the name in italics – left blank the template would fetch data from Wikidata but leave the data unstyled (Flower-class corvette).

Yes, better documentation. The most important and yet the least well-done aspect of anything on wikipedia and all the other wikimedia platforms is documentation. It takes a special skill to do it well.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The permanent tag for a WD property is its "P-form": d:Property:P289; however parser function {{#property}} was designed to also look for a property with a label identical to the requested string as a fallback (similar to this service). Labels may however be changed, P-IDs cannot.

We might reconsider the "WD icon" indicator once we have many more attributes imported from WD in a given infobox, but for now there can be at most one occurrence per ship class; I agree that proper formatting would require more work, but, for now, all I seek is a way to suggest missing infobox data, that contributors to your project would verify and replace/suppress/format as appropriate for each ship class.

Taking the updated infobox live would help enwp users to identify ship classes missing info that WPs from other languages supplied. Categorization is a very good idea! What about automatically categorizing "activated" WD data imports in "Category:Ship classes importing infobox field(s) from Wikidata"?

I could not find an existing {{#property:ship type}}; I believe instance of kind-of played that role; however since the latter is more and more combining class&type in the same field (e.g. Concordia-class cruise ship), the need for ship type has reappeared. I may try to propose it...

Providing formatting via another property is a much more advanced refinement, that might become necessary once enwp decides to systematically use WD as the repository for ship class characteristics. We are far far from that! I'd be happy if simply a few articles could be improved as a result of the imported replacement values.

After I implement categorization and update documentation, would you support deployment of the enhanced template? Laddo (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You have just used the term 'class' in unexpected ways:

...but for now there can be at most one occurrence per ship class; – per ship article? per ship infobox?
...help enwp users to identify ship classes missing info... – ... infoboxes missing info??
Category:Ship classes importing infobox field(s) from Wikidata – Ship infoboxes?

Assuming for this last item that you didn't mean classes specifically, then a category label a bit more generic would seem in order, perhaps Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata or something similar would give you a list of articles with ship infoboxes that imported some bit of data, for now ship class, because ultimately, it won't be just the ship's class but, it will be the ship's type, its length, its commissioning date, its whatever ... At the moment, I don't see a need for parameter- or property-level categories but, if there is ever such a need, we can adapt the template at that time.

You lost me at instance of and how it applies or doesn't apply to ship type.

I never meant to suggest that formatting should be the province of Wikdata. In fact, I strongly believe the opposite. I think of it much like the difference between HTML and CSS: one is information, the other is presentation. Clearly Wikidata is information. It is the user's job to determine how the data are presented. That's why I used the term parameter and not property. Presentation is not Wikidata's responsibility but it is ours.

Unless other editors have objections to convince me otherwise, I believe that you are not doing anything wrongheaded, so I'll support updating the live template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In similar situations where changes to a widely used template have been suggested, a subpage of examples of the infobox at work has been useful to demonstrate how it works in practice and test the change. Is that possible or does the infobox rely on the page/article name as part of its input? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that wikidata relies on page name. For example, the infoboxes at Template:Infobox ship characteristics/testcases don't use |Ship class=. The sandbox version of the infobox which supports wikidata doesn't show the Class & Type: field name with a value. So that you can see what it currently looks like, I've edited USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) to use the sandbox and hidden the value assigned to |Ship class=.

But, your question brings up an interesting point. Are there ship infoboxen on pages that are not about ships? If there are, how do we get Wikidata values for such templates?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What about articles about generic ship types that have multiple infobox to cover specific classes/subtypes (eg Landing Craft, Tank, they use the infobox characteristic section? (6 times) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I've been a bit busy elsewhere.

@Trappist the monk: you're correct of course, I wrote my last answer in a hurry:
- ...but for now there can be at most one occurrence per ship ~~class~~ article (since it is used only in {{Infobox ship characteristics}});
- ...help enwp users to identify ship ~~classes~~ infoboxes missing info...
- Category:Ship ~~classes~~ articles importing infobox field(s) from Wikidata ==> OK, rather Category:Ship infoboxes importing Wikidata
I'll also create a Category:Ship infoboxes blocking Wikidata import, to help investigating malfunctions.
Indeed the scheme to import values from Wikidata can only work on an actual article, since it needs to locate the matching Wikidata item to pick the sought property (the matching WD item is the one that opens if you use the link Wikidata item from the Tools section in the left margin);
Wherever it is used and activated, the WD import scheme will attempt to locate the target property on the "matching" WD item page; if there is no matching WD item page, or the item exists but was not assigned a value for the sought property (e.g. P289 "ship class"), it will simply provide no value.
Finally articles like Landing Craft, Tank represent ship types; as such, the matching WD item page (d:tank landing craft) does not represent a single instance of a ship, thus it will not bear property s:ship class; the import will be ineffective.

I'll implement the new maintenance categories directly in the {{Infobox ship characteristics/sandbox}}; I might also prepare a new version of the template's doc. Laddo (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If the the intent is to progress beyond this simple experiment, then other parameter values (properties) will be imported from Wikidata, right? So you can't just dismiss the Landing Craft, Tank question, it will come up again. Is there or can there be a way for us to add something to the infobox that will override the article level import scheme and for 'this' infobox fetch data for this 'thing' so that the infobox fetches appropriate data regardless of where it is being used?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Parser function syntax {{#property:ship class|of=somepage}} is being worked on; it should allow that kind of access. Laddo (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

While I was tweaking the documentation at Template:Infobox ship begin#Parameter value import from Wikidata, it occurred to me to wonder about referencing for Wikidata properties. There is a stricture here that requires sourcing for anything that is or may be challenged. I can imagine interwiki edit wars over some small point at Wikidata which would impact not just that page but every page that uses the data. Do Wikidata properties have some way for identifying a (reliable) source that supports the property? If not, why not?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References and sources are at the heart of Wikidata philosophy; it is as important as in Wikipedia to provide references for anything other than trivial statements. As an example, I have just added a reference for property "ship class" of USS Will Rogers; have a look at it (expand the "reference" by clicking on its "arrow").

However the {{#property}} parser function does not yet support the set of planned features for importing references (and "qualifiers"). Laddo (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Discuss

Support

Oppose

Other view(s)

2nd Proposal

Background

Proposal

Discuss

Support

Oppose

Related Articles