Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Infobox ship conversion remainders

Monkbot/task 22 has completed its work. The bot and various editors (thank you) have converted approximately 38,500 infoboxen. Category:Page uses old-form ship infobox lists all pages from all namespaces that transclude {{Infobox ship begin}}. At this writing, that category lists ~2,160 pages of which ~1,400 are in mainspace.

Much of what remains is Infobox templates that contain html comment markup (<!--...-->). The bot was intentionally programmed to skip articles with that markup in the infobox or in templates within the infobox.

Assistance converting the remaining mainspace articles would be appreciated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work tackling this! I'll chip in to the conversion effort when I have time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! I'll try to chip in as well in the near future, starting with my own sins articles. Tupsumato (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more. The old infoboxen did not track unknown parameters; the new infoboxen do: Category:Pages using infobox ship with unknown parameters. The old infoboxen did not track the use of WP:Extended image syntax and other oddities in {{Infobox ship image}}; the new {{infobox ship/image}} does: Category:Infobox ship/image syntax. The old {{Infobox ship image}} did not track the specification of non-standard image size; the new {{infobox ship/image}} does: Category:Infobox ship with non-standard image size. Each of these categories has some descriptive text that explains what will cause the articles to be listed in the category.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In attempting to hand convert infoboxes, there appears to be an inconsistency in the document at {{Infobox ship}} and at the sub pages of {{Infobox ship/career}} and {{Infobox ship/characteristics}} about whether to use the form |ship_parameter= or |parameter= . Which is correct, and can someone fix the doumentation (or fix the template so it can use either form.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. |parameter= is the correct form. {{Infobox ship}} fixed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look now, Category:Infobox ship/image syntax is currently empty! Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a few cases where underscores are missing (e.g. "total_ships_on order=" instead of "total_ships_on_order="). Any chance someone could run a bot through the articles and check that all underscores are correct? Tupsumato (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be captured in Category:Pages using infobox ship with unknown parameters, which I've been slowly working through (have gone through close to a thousand so far, down to about 2800 in the category). Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sydney RiverCat#Requested move 13 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney RiverCat#Requested move 13 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Sclass § Collision between template output results and manual of style

Hi, WP Ships members, please see the linked discussion regarding the default format of {{sclass}}, thank you. —Opecuted (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles

For some reason, Bonadart (talk · contribs) copied the article IRIS Makran and more or less duplicated it at Makran-class forward base ship. I don't know if we ought to just redirect the class to the ship article, since the ship article was created first, or if anyone wants to do the work to differentiate the two articles. But we shouldn't have a redundant copy, that much I do know. Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Parsecboy, I would ask the editor why they did that. An article about a ship class should cover the design, construction, and service history of the ships broadly speaking. It can certainly link and give info about the ships themselves, but the detail present at the class article belongs in the ship's article. Phoenix ‣ Talk // Contributions 20:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes i know that but i could have added more info if such info was available at that moment, i still think more info is available, if so than it can be added on to expand the article. Bonadart (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makran-class forward base ship which is a copy/paste creation (with minor modifications) from this version (permalink) of IRIS Makran; see this diff.
Copy/pasta article creations require attribution per WP:ARTICLECOPY. Editor Bonadart did not comply.
No need to keep two more-or-less identical articles.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think there is need to delete the article, i believe more info is now available and such it can added to expand the article Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation that there might be sufficient sources to support a separate class article is not a convincing argument to retain Makran-class forward base ship in its current state and does nothing to address the WP:ARTICLECOPY violations that I noted above.
Makran-class forward base ship should be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The class article should certainly not be deleted - this is not now a one-ship-class; there are apparently two in service and another under conversion. However, the class article should be severely trimmed, with much of the content that only refers to the first ship removed (most obviously the ship's "Commercial service" section, and part of the Lead). - Davidships (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks for the support it is exactly this very i had created the makran class page as i knew in future more ships of the class will be added and has been added since and a lot of info is available as google search will reveal for each ships a well as class. I would be happy if you can help improve the pages. Bonadart (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hi very reason i had created the makran class page as i knew in future more ships of the class will be added and has been added since and a lot of info is available as google search will reveal for each ships a well as class. I would be happy if you can help improve the pages. Bonadart (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hi
this hs been more or less going on in all ship classes, if you see you will find the same, if you can check it you will know. Bonadart (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link some examples, @Bonadart? Phoenix ‣ Talk // Contributions 17:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
check Car Nicobar class and fleet 1 ships of indian navy, Kapitan Pattimura class of indonesia and many more they are either redirect or copy pasted despite info being available, the list is endless Bonadart (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to Car Nicobar-class patrol vessel? There isn't an article for INS Car Nicobar that is duplicated from the class article. And the ship articles that do exist, such as INS Kabra, are their own unique content. So this is not an example of the same problem. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of ship launches

Canterbury Tail removed the bold text from ship names in the list of ship launches in 1889 in this edit. I was halfway through adding to the list when I realised this had been done. As there are a few hundred lists of ship launches with ships names in bold, I restored the bold text to the 1889 list.

The reason given for the removal of the bold was that it is against MOS:BOLD. I'm not sure that it is, but am open to persuasion. The reason I restored the bold text was to bring the 1889 list back in line with all the others. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 20 years. Lists of ship launches have always had ships in bold for as long as I remember. That said, it is not unreasonable to discuss whether or not the practice should continue. If we do decide against having ships in bold, it would be an easy task for a bot to remove it from the various lists. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be in bold? They're not article names, they're not the target of redirects and its an undue emphasis for something that's already in italics. Just because something has always been done one way, doesn't mean its right. I don't see ship names, or names of any kind, listed in the exceptions to MOS:BOLD at MOS:BOLD#OTHER. I will say I was surprised to see you do it, since you're such a long standing editor. This seems like one of those things that someone did once and thought it looked good, and it just continued with no real reason to do so. It's also contrary to WP:SHIPNAME. Canterbury Tail talk 16:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail: I restored the bold because it irks me to have one of a sequence not in line with the rest of the sequence. That's the way I'm wired, sorry. "This seems like one of those things that someone did once and thought it looked good, and it just continued with no real reason to do so." Yes I can see the merit in that argument. Hence raising for discussion. I've no strong feelings either way, so let's see what others think. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs), there doesn't seem any justification in bolding the names. Though I agree with Mjroots (talk · contribs) about consistency of presentation. That is the sort of thing that irks me as well! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm more-or-less indifferent with regards to the bolded ship names but I wonder if they were originally bolded because in the 'list of ship launches', the ship names are buried in a middle column. Why is that? Oughtn't the ship names be in the left column adjacent to the date row headings? Perhaps the columns might be rearranged like this?
Date Ship Class / type Builder Location Country Notes
1 January Racer Schooner James Anderson Kingston on Spey  United Kingdom For Smith & Coull.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Launch at Kingston-on-Spey". Aberdeen Journal. No. 10579. Aberdeen. 2 January 1889.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would make more sense. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would make more sense. The ship name is probably the most important piece of info in the list after the date. Canterbury Tail talk 21:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removal of the bold, but would also suggest removal of the flags - including them for the country of build seems to go against MOS:FLAG "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality" - shipyards are not representatives of the country.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah didn't spot that. Yes it's not the country of registry, which is normally used as a flag, but simply the country of construction. Canterbury Tail talk 03:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: what you're asking would involve a lot of work, although a bot could be tasked with that. @Nigel Ish: part of Wikipedia's remit is to educate. Taking the 1889 list, why is Kaiser Franz Joseph I listed under Trieste and not Italy? It's because Trieste was an independent city state until 1891. Germany did not exist before 1871, nor did Italy before 1861. Danzig was independent until 1871, then part of the German Empire, then a Free State, then part of Poland as Gdansk. So IMvHO, the use of flags can be justified. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Trieste, shouldn't it be linked to this article and have the Austrian Trieste flag? —Simon Harley (Talk). 15:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't enough lists of ship launches for a bot but I think that I've hacked an AWB script that should do the job. There are 4 lists that the script won't do because those lists use rowspan= which is a complexification beyond the capability of a simple regex find and replace.
If list-to-list consistency is important, there are 14 lists that specify a different background color for the date row headers. I think that I can tweak the script to remove that markup. Shall I?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Worth trying Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists using rowspan should be brough back into line with the rest. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lists using rowspan= no longer do. Because there have been no objections to reformatting the tables in the list articles, I will begin doing that.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And done. I got to wondering if it might not be beneficial to create a standard {{launch list table header}} template so that future launch lists retain the same style that is used in all the other lists; there was some amount of variety amongst the lists that was a pain to deal with. Opinions?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Ships