Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 15

6079:

proper wiki reference to the citation, and left a note for MBK to inform him that the reference problem had been resolved. He then deleted the section again, but this time he gave a reason that the individual captains listed are not all notable and don't meet Wiki's notability standards. I fully agree, some if not all of the Captains of the SSBN-737 may not at this time be notable. This is why none of the Captains have their own individual pages on Knowledge (XXG). They would have to have to be notable to have their own page. However, I believe that the historical record of who the Captains are of this fine ship is notable with respect to the ship itself and should therefore be completed. MBK warned me not to restore the section back again until I have appealed to this forum which I am now doing. Thoughts?--

4408:) routinely use the term "cargo liner", and the definitions and descriptions each give are consistent with each other and the online source referenced in the article. As for nomenclature: Wikipedians sometimes get too caught up in narrowly and precisely defined categories, and think that membership in one excludes another. I'm not saying that is happening here, but we need to resist the temptation to impose a logical order that does not actually exist in the real world. There is no question that the term "cargo liner" was routinely used to describe, not a certain narrow type of ship, but a broad spectrum of vessels used for a variety of purposes. And even if the term was principally a matter of British usage, the majority of the world's tonnage was British for much of the period in question. 4582:

where none existed, nor state that different terms are mutually exclusive where they have not been used that way. The source you cite actually makes the point very well. All major passenger liners until the 1950s also carried cargo. Many freighters also carried passengers. Ships carrying 12 passengers were treated as freighters under applicable regulations. Mail liners carried more than mail. Yet terms such as cargo liners, ocean liners, mail liners, and freighters were used despite a lack of precision. We should not, at this remove, retrospectively impose uniformity of usage upon terms in use for more than a century, nor limit the scope of those terms when they were not so limited historically.

6162:

article. In most situations, most people don't care who is in command at any given moment, as they are all responsible officers doing what responsible officers do, and to the outside observer there would be no difference in events if the officer in command was replaced by another officer. My rule of thumb is that the commander should only be specifcally identified in the situations where a different officer on the bridce could have radically changed the outcome of events (battles, collisions, sinkings, etc). --

610: 484:, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. 5893:(EC)The article currently contradicts itself. In the lead it says after the state; while the infobox says city and state. The citation given for city and state is to a website (ussny.org) that does not appear to be a US Navy source otherwise it would have the "This is a US Navy website DOD" etc on it and that site is also selling hats which a real US Navy site would not do. Sources need to be fixed up on the article before a position can be taken. A note in the lead would also help prevent the editing. -- 642:

effect. The captain of Captain presumably ordered the halyards and sheets of the topsails released in an emergency measure, in the hope of reducing the heeling of his ship. I.e. The sails and stays, albeit reefed, were catching the wind coming from the portside, and causing the ship to roll excessively to starboard, but cutting the lines would allow the yards (which were braced against the wind by the halyards and sheets) to swing away, rather than being held against the wind, and would reduce the roll.

6010:

there are no images of similar features on any other warship - surely one entry to illustrate such a feature? The rest of the images have been clarified as demonstrating such features as the stealth shapes and internalisation of standard kit on the Daring, and features such as the aft loading bay door on the Ocean which is not clearly shown on the generic image on that page. I hope this clarifies the inclusion of these images. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I need to change/remove anything.

659:

halyards and sheets in the one case, and only halyards in the other case which is bothering me. Halyards would appear to be ropes holding the top of the sail(?), whereas sheets may mean ropes holding the bottom of the sail to the yard below (?). Why issue different orders for these two and what exactly did they amount to? The order appears to be a specific quote though it does not say where from. Given the point you make, I don't see why they would be using top sails and not the lower ones?

730: 999:

water, also some of the later steel battleships/battlecruisers, bacchante class armoured cruisers had gun ports unopenable in high seas. Designers did not give up on keeping the superstructure as low as possible. I don't know how much a sailing ship might have been expected to lean over in such conditions, but it sounds as though a normal ship would lean at least as much quite safely, so the crew would not automatically be worried about that?

31: 2585:, the Ibuki class were classified in the fleet construction program as "armoured cruisers" (the Kongo class was classified as such too but apparently changed to battlecruisers even before the contruction started) Then it seems that later they were reclassified as "battlecruisers". I did a bit of research and it seems that they were some sort of a transitional class between armoured cruisers and battlecruisers. For example 2830:

aricraft carriers equally there could be a subcat of merchant aircraft carriers but to include the aircraft carrier type in the article name seems to be bordering on unecessary disambiguation. If we set the escort carriers to "xxxx class aircraft carriers" like the rest, half the problem of category matching goes away. To go the other way opens a case for retitling a lot of ship articles for no particular need.

3333:

be the way to go. Mostly the smaller vessels aren't redlinked (coasters and tugs) with the exception of those shipwrecked, lost to enemy action, recent survivors and current survivors (there are two surviving Empire ships). I'll gradually work through the lists, interspersed with Dutch windmill articles and other stuff. If anyone wants to fill in a few of the gaps then I'll not object. Two useful sources are

5971:. All images are from the september 'navy day' at Devonport, but other than this, the captions show nothing. By far the best image of the ship is the title image, and none of these show anything to present any particularly important features of the ship more clearly. One is of the name and another of the crest. A similar gallery has also been added to 4307:. Regarding the prevalence of the term, the phrasing shuold be used to reflect in which country "cargo liners" are most common, athough this may be difficult to judge and is probaly fairly even. I think we should just go for a definition which everone can understand;can I point out now that the RMS St Helena describes her as a "cargo-passenger ship". 3636: 6278:. The list has been arranged alphabetically by ship name rather than alphabetically by Code Letters for aesthetic reasons, I don't think the latter method would be pleasing aesthetically. If consensus is for the list, I'll create it. Possible similar lists would be by IMO Number and by Maritime Mobile Service Identity. 1208:(ec) Its possible the article has an honorary ranking being as how its the center piece of the WP:SHIPS specific FT, however if you think the importance rating is in error it would probably be best to ask there and not here because I'm not familiar enough with there importance ranking to offer an opinion on the matter. 1842:). What's actually happening is the exact opposite of what the importance ratings are supposed to create (or at least my understanding of the purpose of importance ratings, that is). Look at the FAs that are within this project's scope: only a few are higher than "mid" rating, and the majority of those (for example, 1838:- Importance ratings don't serve much of a purpose; editors will write the articles that interest them. And to some extent, they're motivated to write more obscure articles, if only for the sake of avoiding editing disputes (I know this was discussed somewhere at some point in the past, probably over at 6078:

article with the reason being that the source was not properly referenced. There was, in fact, in the references section the document from which I took personally took this list, the Welcome Aboard pamphlet given to me when I had the honor of touring the SSBN-737. I added the section back, added a

5612:

It's weird seeing myself get talked about in 3rd person. Thanks. Why are you getting worried that I'll delete the articles? I'm just an editor with an opinion that might be right or wrong, can reasonably say whatever I want, and FWIW, the 'deletion' admins that deal with deletions rarely take part in

4643:

Or we could have separate articles, but I'm not about to quibble over that right now. My main concern ATM is that ships that are described in the literature as "passenger cargo ships" or "passenger freighters" etc are not changed in their articles to "cargo liner", since cargo liner is a more generic

3997:

My own impression is that "cargo liner" is a British usage that is not in widespread use. Indeed, I never even heard of the term until Mj wrote the article. Another problem is that if you google "cargo liner" it turns out to be a term widely employed for a type of boot mat used in motor vehicles - in

3926:

If the definition is too restrictive please expand the article to widen the definition. While ocean liners and cruise ships may carry cargo, their primary purpose was to carry passengers. Cargo liners were more concerned with the carriage of cargo, with passengers generally an added extra bringing in

2802:

Surely the problem has to be that an early ship classified by its owners as an aircraft carrier will be smaller and slower than later ships classified as escort carriers. A category ought to hold comparable ships and splitting them by a name which was only applicable at a particular period in history

2675:

The United States Navy, one of the three main navies (the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy being the other two) to employ escort carriers, seemingly viewed them as separate from 'regular' aircraft carriers: the CVE hull code had a different numbering scheme than was/is used for the CV, CVA, CVB,

2317:

because it was classified as schooner, but I'm wondering about th next steps: a- rename the article Tara_(schooner) and include the boat history and expeditions in one single page, or b- make a new article Tara_(schooner) and keep the expeditions separated? I prefer solution a but I don't know how to

2014:

that I've been working up the assessment scale. My talk page has also brought comments from people because I rated their article to something they dislike. If you're not assessing articles you obviously don't see this going on which is why I suspect some believe it's not a problem. The other question

1558:

If anything you've just proved ur own argument wrong, that Knowledge (XXG) hits do not indicate fame (if they do, then major motion pictures certainly do!) and that such high numbers are actually the product of having FAs everywhere and probably from an insistence of being on the top importance list.

1023:

What was the specific effect on the two topsails of the different commands supposedly given? Should 'let go halyard' be interpreted as causing the whole yard complete with sail to be released and come crashing down? So the fore topsail is being completely chucked, whereas there is still an attempt

906:

As a sail are reefed from the yard, and the yard is then lowered, it is not clear from the images whether they show the sails double-reefed. There can be multiple bands of reef points on a sail; such rows are shown on the external link above, below the yards on both fore and mainmasts from which the

6367:

is the unclassified book of NATO callsigns. The version here is AG (Nov 07), and I believe the latest version is AH - the changes are only in getting rid of decommissioned ships and adding new ones. It's going to be a long list... On the other hand, those who wish to add callsigns to articles will

6161:

I'm personally of the opinion that listing all commanding officers in a ship's article (either in list format or integrated into the text) adds very little to the article, and only those officers who have had a significant impact on the ship's history should be mentioned at the relevant point in the

6112:

that a list looks a bit odd. Personally I would prefer to see the commanding officers mentioned in passing in with the history of the ship, rather than having sections or paragraphs devoted exclusively to the commanders. What I mean is that the article is about the history of the ship and when you

4303:

I don't think the term 'liner' actually suggests anything about its class: a one star cruise ship could still be described as a cruise liner, and many "cargo liners" have this or a better level of quality. The term may be perceived by some as having a link with a higher class of vessel, but I don't

3332:

All Empire ships which I feel have sufficient notability to sustain an individual article are redlinked in whichever "List of Empire ships" list is applicable. It may be in a few cases that it will not be possible to write more than a stub article, in which case simply de-linking the list entry will

2033:

Some disagreement over the ratings is natural, however I am confident we can work through those in a case-by-case examination. Our importance rating system is straightforward, intuitive, and works great for 99.9% of articles. I see no need to junk the system just because consensus has been elusive

1912:

as more important than one on the Bismarck or Yamato. As a ship buff I can understand why we do that, but to an uninitiated reader that's just crazy; they're going to assign a value based on fame/popularity. And we cater to that ourselves since popular ships have more information available to use as

946:

So I am now left with the question whether what happened on the ship was reasonable. The padfield description seems to suggest that the heel of the ship caught them by surprise and they did not have time to reduce sails further. Some of the comments here suggest that they had time but were unable to

658:

Padfield says there were only the three sails at the time and topsails at that. As the picture suggests maybe four sails on each mast, I am not sure whether 'topsails' literally means the very top, or might mean more than one per mast. I understand 'let go'. Its specifically the effect of letting go

621:

as she was heeling dangerously in a storm, just before she capsized. The source also comments that, ' the captain was reduced to fore topmast staysail and fore and main topsails double reefed, their yards braced sharply to the wind from the port bow'. Captain was a three masted experimental turret

6388:

Can't see the point myself. If the code letters are in the article, then the ship will be found by a search. If the ship is known then the place to look for the code letters is in the article. Is anyone going to browse through the list looking for a particular code letter combination The one link I

6343:

Maybe a combined list - by Code Letters (it's a proper noun phrase, hence should be capitalised, despite the article being moved after I created it with the correct title), by IMO number and by MMSI. I will remove the flags if it is felt that inclusion is not productive. At least I've learned a bit

4224:

Having just taken a look at the article, I'm not even sure the definition is accurate, or if it is, that it is referring to the same type of ship at all. Many of the passenger freighters I have read about did not carry passengers as a secondary, or intermittent, function - their passenger component

3849:

I wonder if the definition is too restrictive. The article relies on a source coming from a period when there was no great specialization in ocean-going merchant ships, and when every ship that carried passengers also carried cargo. The word "liner" is now attached to many types of merchant ships

2580:

Actually i'm very puzzled the article says there were classified as heavy cruisers because I don't think the IJN introduced the heavy cruiser classification until they build the Furutaka class cruisers (which, i'm not mistaken, was after the Washington treaty, so much later). According to Lacroix's

938:

This is just as bad as particle physics. Thanks for all the comments. I am bothered that the image I posted of Captain shows four yards and four sails on each mast, whereas the britishempire website picture has only three yards, as does the alternative ship picture shown on the HMS Captain article.

6132:

I would imagine that where this nuclear sub was on station is classified. So, the proposal is that the commanders be listed in prose with a reference after each sentence and without the commander's names set up as wiki links? The reference at the end of each sentence in the paragraph would be to

6009:

Apologies for the original lack of specifics in the descriptions, my fault from cut-and-pasting the captions in due to time contraints. I have since added the information pertinent to these images to (hopefully) justify their inclusions. The name and crest have been added since - to my knowledge -

5577:

is not an admin, and even if he was would be operating well outside his remit if he arbitrarily deleted either article. That said it would be good to see more input from WP:SHIPS regulars so that a clear consensus can emerge, especially as this discussion is germane to the issue over whether large

4581:

The "categories" are not exclusive, and overlap. A passenger-freighter or passenger-cargo ship can be a cargo liner, and is described as such by reliable sources. It may be that some cargo liners do not carry passengers, but according to reliable sources most did. We should not impose precision

1452:

1. I still find it laughable that you trying to insist you've never heard of the Titanic. 2. The construction of the Iowa class was still not as developmental in the history of ships as the Aircraft Carrier or the Galleon as per WP:ships criteria. Neither is it as famous as the Titanic, Mayflower,

1668:

Personally, I think all this is another good reason to do away with the importance rating. Plenty of other projects don't use it anymore, for one thing... and when all is said and done, the importance rating is not actually particularly important - in fact it's fairly irrelevant. I would also say

712:

Sorry, didn't understand that. The quote I gave is from Padfield/The battleship era, who devotes a few pages to the buildup and sinking. He appears to undertand sails, and his biography rather suggests that he would. I don't know what an inclination test demonstrates. The situation at the sinking

4728:

It depends on the ships. I personally think that all 'incarnations' of the same hull should be in the same article, with the article title being the more 'famous' or well known name. However, common practice and consensus appears to be if the actual or potential size of the articles would be too

3298:- Are you going to create articles for every ship, or leave the less interesting ones just in the lists? Is it worth creating sublists or sub-categories (but sub-categories those only will only work if every ship has an article), for eg Empire ships transferred to Belgium, Empire CAM ships etc? 2829:

and not "Majestic class light aircraft carrier" yet there were about as many British light fleet carrier classes as there were US escort classes. The escort part of the article name is redundant as ship class names are not repeated. I see no probem with a subcat of aircraft carriers being escort

2664:

for matching the class category name to the class article name. In the case of escort carriers right now, most class articles and categories are titled using "aircraft carrier" rather than "escort carrier", although there are some that are the other way around. And, frustratingly, there are some

743:

As I understand it the sails shown in black in my little diagram are the only ones which were up at the end. The two big ones probably ought to be smaller but I've only found one diagram of a double-reefed sail so far which didn't help. As to what Parkes said about yards, that suggests that in

1913:

grist for articles and we ourselves may be more interested in those types of ships. I mean, really, how many highly important articles on minor warship classes are we missing compared to individual larger ships of mid-importance? So, to sum up, I see no real value in keeping importance ratings.

1795:

and now a third time. Enter your signature below to support or oppose the removal of the importance ratings. We can leave this here as long as needed to arrive at some consensus. Removal will not cause any additional work as only an adjustment of the project banner is needed to deactivate them.

998:

Yes, though he puts it slightly differently and says the admiral was rather concerned about the sea washing over the deck one side, and later comments the deck touched the sea at around 14 degrees. I recall there were some comments about the later HMS Victoria that the fore deck was often under

641:

The order 'let go' would mean release in this context. The problem seems to be that the topsails were catching the wind, which in a strong wind could cause the ship to heel considerably, while the lower sails in the same state, being closer to the ship's centre of gravity, would have less of an

4528:

But that's the point I'm making. "Cargo liner" according to the definition of this article is not synonymous with "passenger freighter" or "passenger-cargo ship". So it should not be substituted for the other terms. To put it another way, ships that are described in the literature as passenger

1734:

It seems to me that the drama generated by importance debates outweighs the marginal usefulness of having the categories. That said, it's not clear to me how objecting to a high importance rating, especially on articles that receive a great deal of attention, serves the project. In any case,

1683:

Maybe the importance rating might have had some use in setting some sort of priority for the generation of new or improved articles, but I think it's pretty obsolete for that function now and should be deleted as I see no real use for it now. It certainly has no bearing on my decisions on what

794:

also accurately shows the sails set, but on the image the topsails do not appear to be reefed (that is, shortened, which on square sails is accomplished by taking them up from the "head" or top of the sail). It appears to represent the sail set prior to reefing. (Knowledge (XXG)'s article on

5012:

I do not have a problem with milhist or anyone else taking an interest in the article. However there was little activity off the south coast of Ireland during the war. convoys went north of Ireland, as the southern coast was within range of german bombers based in France. Consequently, the

1886:

My thoughts also echo Parsec's for the most part. Importance ratings serve no purpose these days, editors will edit what interests them, not articles that are deemed "important." We are all aware of articles that are important to the project, ship types etc and as mentioned above, given the

625:

Not knowing anything about sails i tried looking up the terms but am not confident of explaining exactly what was ordered and what the effect would be. It appears to be saying that only three sails were in use. Then, different things were ordered for the two topsails, but with what effect?

2597:

built as exceptionally powerful armored cruisers but were often identified as battlecruisers and were reclassified as such in 1912. They clearly belong in the Capital Ship category of battlecruisers rather than in cruiser categories, especially when compared to the previous two armored

2680:

What I'd like to propose is this: for escort carrier class articles that we standardize on using " class escort carrier" (and not "escort aircraft carrier" or "aircraft carrier") and for class categories that we standardize on " class escort carriers". So, to pick a mismatched example,

2071:

If the rating is only to help prioritize writing and improving articles then why not call it a priority rating, with two levels: High and regular. High means its absence (or weakness) leaves an obvious gap in the encyclopedia - obvious, that is, to someone other than a ship or history

748:

tried to bring down the whole of the fore and main topsails by bringing down the yards (cross spars)to which the sails were attached, rather than just releasing the "sheets". As to an inclination test, that is a test of inclination. Parkes too devotes a number of pages to the loss of

439:

policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Knowledge (XXG) articles.

4225:

was every bit as important, if not more so, than their freight component. But you wouldn't know that from reading this article. Also, most freighters have, or had, a modest ability to carry passengers, but if you read this article you would come away with the impression that

1764:

I think that a Top rating for the class article is stretching it a bit far but I'm not opposed to it being rated such. The Iowa's are very notable as they were capital ships that served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War not to mention the infamous turret explosion on

942:

Harley, I am amazed to find an inclination test tests inclination, but while I had the inclination to look it up on wiki, I couldn't find an article. I suppose I only had about 18 degrees of inclination, so didn't carry on looking but just asked. Your diagram makes sense.

4614:

I agree, but that is essentially the point I'm making. We shouldn't be referring to ships as "cargo liners" that are called passenger freighters or passenger cargo ships. By all means link this article to ships described as "cargo liners", but not to the other categories.

713:

would seem to be that the ship was proceeding at an angle to the wind with a lot of force pushing it sideways rather than forwards. If there was a steady wind holding her at about 18 degrees, then any gust pushing her past this would cause capsize (on padfields figures).

4288:

freighter employed in regular sailings on a fixed route would qualify as a "cargo liner", even if it carried no passengers at all. Is that an accurate definition? If not, I think this definition should be dropped from the article as it can only mislead readers.

2379:

The difference between that and the Tara is that it seems to me that the only reason the Tara would be notable is because of its purpose in this expedition. The USS Tanager was a notable warship in its own right. I still think you should keep it how it is.

4048:. Maybe "cargo liner" is a British useage, but redirects have been created for alternate terms so that shouldn't be too big a problem. If an editor creates an article for the modern useage there is a disambiguation process to differentiate between the two. 1580:

Yes, because readers look at pages because they're rated "Top" or they have a little gold star in the corner :/ They look at the pages because they're interested in them, by and large. And the reason they're interested in these ships (as opposed to, say,

407: 5998:, once the appropriate commons link is added to the article. Navy Open days are brilliant chances for photos, but unless part of the article is describing what is in the images (the name board, the ship's boat, etc) I don't think there's much point. -- 5191:

and further identified by Official Numbers. Therefore it would seem consistent to name articles about RNLI lifeboats in this style. There are a few non-RNLI lifeboats, such as Caister on Sea. I'd suggest these are named in the style (Location) lifeboat

4478:

was that they went faster than the norm for cargo ships of the time. Certainly that is clear from the context where I have read them. Once commercial avaiation became widespread, affordable and accepted, the need for them presumably disappeared.

6117:

was on station at ZZZZ. At this time she was commanded by Commander John Smith (Blue watch, 19XX to 19XX) and Commander Fred Smith (Gold watch, 19YY to 19YY)." If you do it this way don't forget to add a citation at the end of each such sentence.

1255: 6325:

do it without the flag graphics. They don't really convey any information that's not already in text form, and a large number of flags could make the load time (even though we're not supposed to worry about performance) soar through the roof. —

1368:). I will repeat it again: they are among the most famous ships ever operated by the US Navy, and as such are among the most well known ships in the United States, one of our primary reader bases. As such, they clearly meet the second criteria. 4440:

As the article says, cargo liners were mostly active between the 1860s and 1970s, so the term should generally be viewed as a historic one. Cargo-passenger ship, passenger-cargo ship, passenger freighter are also used to describe this class of

846:

is where I found the one diagram I referred to earlier. Seeing it with all the other drawings makes a lot more sense (the joy of Google search). I think therefore the fore and main topsail yards should be alot lower than shown in my drawing.

2533:

It looks like from the article that during the bulk of their (short) service career, they were classed as battlecruisers by the IJN (heavy cruiser: 1907–12; battlecruiser 1912–23). Assuming that the article is accurate, I see no objections to

6411:

Part 6 (when you are lucky enough to find it) lists ships in code-letter order and has data not in parts 1-5. Could be handy as a sortable table but I would not argue it's clearly encyclopedic. More useful when the article hasn't yet been

5613:

the del discussion anyway, so don't take any perceived threats seriously on Afd. Given that, and after discovering this project, can you point me to a notability guideline for ships? Why hasn't any such guideline been produced in the Afd? --

2198:, amongst others. As I have no marine engineering knowledge whatsoever it would be good if someone who does could look at this and explain what this system is and its significance in the greater marine engineering scheme of things. Thanks, 5161:(ON 826), as well as the two Mary Stanfords and the Zetland. Inevitably there will be more. (and I have located a third Mary Stanford! - there were two in Rye). If there is a standard for the name then these articles need renaming. 2322:(Anneyh?). I would keep it how it is, but the article does need a lot of work. I think the actual ship is not particlularly important compared to its function, so I'd keep the basic structure and concentrate more on what its role is. 799:

discusses only reefing of fore-and-aft sails, in which the reef points are tied to the boom at the "foot" of the sail, and not of square sails, where the points are tied to the yard above. An illustrated description of the process is

616:

hi. I was wondering if anyone knowledgeable about sails and sailing could explain the exact meaning of the order, 'let go the foretopsail halyards! Let go fore and maintopsail sheets!. The order was supposedly given by the captain of

3927:

a bit more revenue. From a passenger's point of view, they could possibly be considered in the same light as flying with a flag carrier or a budget airline - i.e. they were a lot more attractive if cost was your primary consideration.

1901:

I hadn't thought about external use of the ratings, but since they're pretty straightforward I don't see why we really need to bother keeping them. I see endless opportunities for arguments with a system that rates an article on the

4940: 2933: 682:

had both watches on deck trying to bring down the topsail yards without success which has a somewhat different ring to it. It is interesting that the boy Gribble heard that the heel of the ship was eighteen degrees, when in July

2132: 1719:

I'd be fine with getting rid of them. Like I said one of the other times this was brought up, the importance rating doesn't matter to most editors when they decide what articles to edit. They'll write about what interests them.

3118: 1080: 4343:

Gatoclass, if a source states that a ship is a cargo liner then it should be described as such, and added to that category. In the case that you mention, I'd say that it wasn't a cargo liner unless described as such by a RS.

1967:'s words from that same discussion: our importance-assessment scheme for the project is pretty straightforward to implement, and will add that, despite a few differences of opinion every now and then, it works pretty well. — 3073: 1669:

that if people are now having a lengthy debate over why it should be one importance rating over another - something that has no bearing on the average reader of the article at all - then it clearly has become irrelevant ;)

269: 1624:(out) - the SHIPS importance rating has nothing to do with motion pictures... the importance rating has to do with how important it is within our project. I highly doubt that it changes the web hits by more than a couple. 185:

has some editions listed. Some are available online though it appears that you would have to have access to some sort of University network to read them. Otherwise you can search by zip code to find the copy nearest you.

6171:

I agree with Savberwyn - lists of commanding officers of ships and individual military units aren't encyclopedic. COs change over regularly and few of them do anything particularly significant beyond their usual duties.

4752:

These two articles should be merged as they are both stubs. If it is possible to write two decent article about the ship under each name then there may be some justification in having two articles, but not in this case.

4552: 4304:

think it necessarily implies this. However, it does not appear really to suggest any particular function, other than possibly it being part of a line: Hapag-lloyd describes their container ships as liners for example:

5910:. I really am not involved in editing the article, just stopped by when it was mentioned on a World Series broadcast and fixed dead links, and have been watching the edit war. I'll try adding a note in the lead using 4870: 2966: 4903: 3150:

have a "Background" section" and some of them don't. Mostly my fault as I created most of them lol. If there are no objections I propose th addition of the section to all articles which currently lack it, per

211: 2474: 5708:

Liberty ships are the quintessential mass-produced generic freighter; they built some 2,700 of them. I doubt any other ship design even comes close to that. About the only thing out of the ordinary about

3294:. Only problem is that it is currently single sourced, only when I've finished I should be able to back up the main source with references for individual ship biographies. Now a couple of questions for 242: 2441: 6108:

When the list of commanding officers was added into the page all of the names were wiki-linked (redlinked), so it looks like they were expected to be notable - and they are clearly not. I agree with

5468: 3178:

IMO you'd be better off creating some sort of "Empire ships" article and just putting all the info there, and then just linking to it in the text in the same way you would for a ship class article.

5835:

as an IP, claiming to have an email promoting his/her view. Usswisconsin has reposted the original IP comment in full, including disclosure of personal information that may be considered sensitive

3619:

I'd forgotten about that template. It could be rewritten to link to all the lists of Empire ships articles. It's original use has now been superseded by the individual templates by suffix letter.

5838:. I am requesting that an admin or someone who has experience dealing with such single-mindedness assist with setting the record and this user straight, there is obviously some emotion involved. 2364:. Both pages need an image of the ship, many of which are free and available, but I would prefer if an expert from the project would choose one (or as many as they like) and upload it. Thanks. 1955:

I will conceded that importance is not typically the deciding factor in determining what editors will edit, but the importance rating is not solely used internally by the project. In one of the

1166:

article is a Top, however this is a High. Additionally all the individual ship articles in this class are rated at High, when they should be Mid; "Individual ships, like USS Fletcher (DD-445)."

2273:

I'd say they should be tagged as WP:SHIPS articles. The IMO classifies them as ships. The tagging for WP:AVIATION is also correct as these vehicle have more in common with aircraft than ships.

272:

has decided that all future templates need deleting and that includes the future ship template, am i the only one here who thought those templates were pretty useful for future ship articles?

2810:

which seems to me to perform the role of an early aircraft carrier as its purpose is also transporting deck launched remote attack machines. Where does this fit into the categorisation system?

1705:

with no resolution. The last time it was discussed there seemed to be a majority in favor or discontinuing the use of importance ratings but nothing was done officially. Are we ready now? --

4203:

Yes, but again that's a British source. What American (for example) source uses the term? In every US source I've seen, they are referred to a passenger freighters or passenger-cargo ships.

1284:,000 times in the space of one month thus also making it eligible of Top importance critiria, no? Of course not, these high page views can be attributed to the article's FA class/FA topic. 167:

by Lawrence Sondhaus? It's available on Google books, but in all four editions online, pg 219 isn't viewable (though of course you can see pages 218 and 220...) Can anyone lend me a hand?

3793:

I have more commonly heard them referred to as passenger freighters or passenger-cargo ships, but they are often referred to as cargo liners, which I think is a more appropriate title.

1846:, which is "High" rating) are still pretty obscure. Since everyone (including myself) is largely ignoring article importance, why not just get rid of them as other projects have done? 2644:

In my personal project of systematizing the existing category structure for ships, I've come up against a dilemma regarding escort carrier class article and class category names. The

5639:. A ship costs many millions to construct, and as such is a big investment. For modern ships it is easy to find enough info about constructions, identification and ownership to meet 947:

reduce sail. That sounds as though there might have been a contribution to the sinking by crew error, in leaving up sails in conditions where it became impossible to take them down?

4229:

freighter which can carry passengers would qualify as a "cargo liner", and while that may be the case for cargo liners (I don't know), it certainly isn't for passenger freighters.

3994:

I think the point Kablammo was making is that "cargo liner" these days may be used for cargo only ships, in the same way that "container liner" is used, or be confused with such.

3212:

Hmmm, If I do create such an article it will be rather stubby. The boilerplate text is already in as the lead of each of the lists of Empire ships. Maybe I'll leave it at that.

6234: 5603:, which will deal with the arms seizure. We just need to ensure that O4S doesn't dominate the Francop article and it looks like all will be happy. 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) 5476: 4911: 3892:, among others. My only question is whether the term means that passengers could be carried, or if it is more generic and included non-passenger freighters on line voyages. 3081: 2482: 2140: 1276:

I'm inclined to disagree, they made a major motion picture about Titanic and the Mayflower founded the world's only superpower. Conversely if we use the "page views logic",

1053:

I'm confused about the language. I would have thought the halyard was attached to the staysail, and that jeers were attached to the yards to which the topsails were tied.

4494:

One more point: While passenger carriage was a typical feature of such vessels, there were freighters on regular line service which did not have passenger accomodations.

472:

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding

5940:

would be definitive. The current quote alluding to the "people of the Empire State" strikes me as a tad bit ambiguous if it's supposed be preventing this argument. --

2883:) did the majority of the conversions so we owe him a big thanks! Please delete these old templates under the housekeeping rule. I certainly won't miss them one bit. -- 1981:

Well, actually, I don't think it's true that "despite a few differences of opinion every now and then, it works pretty well". A number of my shipyard articles, like

4506:

were examples of such ships; although they were not "cargo-passenger" ships (or some variation of that term) they nevertheless were called "cargo liners". Miller,

128:

I've added some information and copyedited. I'm having trouble finding sources to fill out the ship specs. The only informative listing I've found is a sale ad at

3194:

Concur with Gatoclass, I don't see the point of using boilerplate text in this way. A single article with links from the ship articles would be more appropriate.

1956: 1792: 1789: 1702: 1699: 564:, yet there are no links to an article, as there does not appear to be one. It could be a nice little addition, if anyone has the sources and the inclination. 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 561: 1993:

by different editors with different views. Unless issues like this are cleared up, I don't think we can say that the rating system is currently working well.

5877:

meant to caution me for removing the first talk page entry, containing email and information about a unnamed relative? Not sure what the reference is for. –

5126:

I did post a question here (on talk:WikiProject Ships) if there was a standard naming convention. There was no reply. There are a few other RNLBs, such as

3401:

Now that we have a nice article on Empire ships, I see little justification for retaining the "Background" boilerplate in the individual articles. Comments?

2015:

is to ask why two major projects like Milhist and Bio aren't using importance ratings. Does that mean their article aren't being selected for CD release? --

1306: 903:

Linked above also accurately shows the sail set. (That image would be a useful addition to Knowledge (XXG) commons, if its provenance can be established.)

287:

I didn't think so. If a ship isn't yet built then the article should be stating that. The template also added to page clutter and generally made a mess. --

6133:

the same source since they all come from that source. Doing it this was seems much less accessible then a good list, but if that is the consensus . . .--

3173:

I'm not sure that's such a good idea. It means people who want to read a number of the articles are going to be reading the same thing on page after page.

5525:

It has now been suggested that both the article on the ship and the one on the incident be deleted and merged into a separate article on a UN resolution.

5783: 5778: 5424: 4555:

is one book that has an extensive discussion of cargo liners, and which also makes the distinction between cargo liners and "passenger-cargo liners".

2092:

Looks like there is enough consensus to disable the importance ratings. But I will wait another week before making the effort to get them disabled. --

315:. I feel that the article would be greatly improved if we could finally settle on either "battleship" or "battlecruiser." The discussion can be found 4629:

The best way to deal with this is to expand the article to describe passenger-cargo ships / cargo-passenger ships / passenger freighters more fully.

1151: 5787: 2825:

Why are they "xxxx class ESCORT aircraft carrier" when so far as you point out we don't make the distinction of "xxxx class LIGHT cruiser". We have

2007:

I'm going to agree with you. Far more misunderstandings and changing of ratings happen than is brought up here for discussion. It happened again on

2725:

I agree, this seems sensible. I would add though that it does make sense to me to place escort carrier and aircraft carrier categories in the same

1039:

Was there not generally a midpoint attachment of the yard to the mast, to transmit force and provide for smooth pivoting when trimming or tacking?

5134: 4378:

suggest that cargo liner is less commonly used, or less clear to readers. Either way, there must be some good reason they have chosen to use it.

2656:

class light fleet escort missile frigate" (or some such). Although there is no corresponding naming convention for class category names, there is

1147: 6147:

If you properly cited a source and wikilinked it, then you should be able to list it. MBK is a bit power mad. I've had run-ins with him before.

5553:, Shuki says he's willing to delete both articles. AFAIK he's not an admin so he can't do that. I've already challenged the mergists to nominate 4729:

large to be combined, or if there is disagreement over which is the 'more famous' incarnation of the hull it is better to keep them separate. --

3387:

covers them, plus the categories for World War II merchant ship by country, Merchant ships by country and Steamships by country (if applicable).

3290:

There is only one copy in Essex too and it happened to be at my local library, so I've got it now. I have made a start on the generic article -

443:

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at

753:. If you'd read the garbage which Padfield wrote about director-firing you would treat anything he writes with a certain measure of caution. -- 5770: 4713:

are the same ship, but in different articles. Is it usual stated in two articles? I also noticed, that several ships were in wrong categories.

1305:

That still doesn't mean the ships aren't among the most famous warships ever operated by the United States. searching "Iowa class battleship"

5150: 316: 4972: 4830: 3768: 2619: 6210:. Here the isolated shipbuilding, the navigation. I would like to collect this information in a navigation template. I suggest to name it 4101: 1769:. Therefore the individual ships themselves should have the High rating but you will notice that the two canceled ships are rated Low. -- 5994:, once someone has made sure that the images are covered in the Commons link near the end of the article, the gallery can go. Same with 3749:

Hmm, not sure about the title, in my experience these ships were usually referred to as passenger freighters, or passenger-cargo ships.

535: 384: 6024:

If the images of the crest and name are there just because they are not any where else, they should go somewhere more general like the

5907:

The linked PDF above is from the Navy, I can use that but it is almost two years older than ussny.org, which is some sort of non-profit

4801:

A suggestion: project members should consider better organization and perhaps broader coverage of the smaller vessels designed to haul

2253:

article clearly says it's a marine vehicle that is always in contact with the water, and uses hydrodynamic lift... like a hydrofoil...

47: 17: 6214: 5821: 5285:

should be a subcat, but I haven't added it as I think better to discuss here about the problem with the rescue vs shipboard category.

5154: 2259: 5731:

Looking at the various Lists of Liberty Ships, there's plenty of article to create there. I'd help out but I'm still working on the

5643:, thus establishing notability. For older ships it is not quite so easy, but generally do-able, even for generic freighters such as 5628: 5146: 5142: 5138: 4108: 2746: 2726: 1230:

class ships are amongst the most famous vessels ever operated by the US Navy, and merit the "Top" rating. As a bit of evidence, the

411: 399: 6344:

more about creating tables by doing it that way. I can make the table sortable if desired. Possible new title "Ships by identity"

4772: 4710: 3013: 2689: 308: 1427:

Really? Wow, so when did you finally learn about the Titanic then, when they made the film? Nah the Bismarck should stay there.

6271: 3046: 2995: 2826: 2693: 2682: 962:

It would be typical to send down unused yards. Any tophamper such as yards without sails would catch the wind in heavy weather.

436: 328: 3097: 2911: 2225: 1874: 1655: 1100: 6094:

Would it be possible to turn the list into prose? Instead of a bullet list maybe one paragraph of description would help. --

2880: 2535: 2507: 1360:. You have barely addressed this issue; the fact that the ships didn't have a movie made about them is irrelevant (though 531: 4210:

is often interpreted to mean a first class vessel, and I'm not sure the average passenger freighter would fit the bill.

2665:

cases where the class article name and its corresponding class category don't match. Some other observations I've made:

6303:

What would link to such a list? Would every ship with known code numbers have a "See also" section with a link? (Yuck.)

5282: 2325:

Also, please remember to sign your contributions on talk pages using the four tildes; it makes it a lot easier to use.

2107:

The change was made a few hours ago. Database may lag in updating everything right away but so far things look good. --

1982: 1960: 5627:

Good questons. The reason that no notability guideline has been quoted is that none exists. The nearest we do have is

5532: 5512: 5056: 4818: 3998:

fact this is by far the most frequent usage, running into hundreds of thousands of hits, whereas hits for cargo liner

3234:

Haven't you got a book about the Empire ships? Surely they have a few words about the history of the concept in that?

2409: 129: 5853:

Left a 3RR warning, if they insert the info in the article again they get blocked. As for the personal information,

5221: 5774: 4610:

We should not, at this remove, retrospectively impose uniformity of usage upon terms in use for more than a century

2863: 2853: 1843: 1408: 1117: 969:

often sailed with her lee rail under, to the alarm of some on board. Her design made her loss inevitable. Kablammo

38: 6393:

article consistently refers to them as "signal codes" which makes me wonder about the choice of the article name.

5968: 5824:) is insisting that the name of the recently commissioned ship is named for the city and not the state of New York 4775:

stub fits more naturally into construction as being part of her original incarnation. I've added merge templates

972:

Does Padfield mention that in the evening of 6 September (hours before the final capsizing) Admiral Milne visited

516:

unless you want help with it, i suggest that we leave the author to do the authoring, it is called 'initial text'

383:

to see how the page sits with the crew here on how well the page is put together please. Thank you for your time.

182: 5048: 4822: 4743: 4718: 2136: 2124: 985: 856: 762: 699: 595: 506: 6297: 5694:

Another example of what? Military ships are much more notable than mass produced generic shipping containers. --

3708: 2600:

Anyway I have 2 of the sources the article use and I'll check them later to see what they have to say about it.

1839: 6015: 5631:

which has not been adopted. That said, it is generally felt that all ships (even generic freighters) will meet

4810: 1903: 989: 860: 766: 703: 277: 5550: 4834: 590:

This seems like an interesting new article that I wanted to bring to the attention of this project. Cheerios.

3555:

I've added a wikilink to the Empire ships article from each of the Empire ships templates by sufffix letter.

1327:

Still doesn't make it as revolutionary to the world as the invention of the Aircraft Carrier or the Galleon.

6398: 6075: 5240: 5232: 4944: 4932: 4850: 3077: 3065: 2937: 2925: 2835: 2560: 1918: 1689: 388: 5678:, a WWII Liberty ship which was saved from an AFD and is now an A-Class article both here and at MILHIST. - 4676:

A template has been created which will cut down the amount of typing needed when referring to U-boats. See

4280:(outdent) If that is an accurate definition of a cargo liner, then it is essentially referring to a ship's 3383:

article and raised a couple of points on the talk page. Re sub-cats, I don't think that will be necessary.

3001: 1985:, have remained unrated because there is no consensus as to how to rate shipyards. Likewise, articles like 1585:, an FA I wrote that only get a couple thousand views per month) is, survey says...because they're famous. 1189: 976:

and the ship already had a heel of 13½°, but was assured by Coles and Burgoyne that it wasn't a problem? --

900: 791: 609: 6123: 5815: 5600: 5508: 5432: 5427:. Currently it looks to be a random as to which category individual lifeboat articles are listed under. 5290: 5052: 4780: 4484: 4243:

The definition is a quote from the source, but the text after may need some tweaking. I'll take a look.

3303: 2263: 981: 852: 758: 695: 5874: 5854: 5216: 4947: