Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Assessments: Class assessment needed • Log Categorize and tag: New article feed Cleanup listing: Articles tagged for cleanup alphabetically or by category at Labs Expand stubs: Stub-class ship articles Images: Requested ship photos • Infoboxes without an image Infoboxes: Infobox needed • Infobox conversion needed Recent changes: US changes • UK changes • cruiseship changes
Information and sources
Article alerts: Updated daily Guidelines Manual of Style Infobox ship: Usage guide Naming Conventions (articles) Categorization Project Scope Past AfDs Popular Pages: Most popular ship articles Tools and Templates Ensigns {{Navy}} {{USN flag}} Outreach Resources Participants Barnstars Project subpages

SS Asia disambiguation page proposal

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

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

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

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

I might be able to do something. Akaza ^[talk] 06:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Hope that helps. Llammakey (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It didn't, but I've fixed the two permalinks now. Thankyou Trappist the monk for spotting my two typos! Motacilla (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right Motacilla. You're suggestion was wrong since there is already a ship index page for Asia. My bad for listening to you. I will nominate it for deletion. Llammakey (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This shouldn't be deleted, it needs to redirect to the more encompassing ship index if it's not going to be its own ship index- something needs to exist at the base name if there are ships with that name that are disambiguated by launch year. I have done the blank and redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Move suggested for Keresaspa and Lydia

I recently revised and expanded USS Keresaspa and USS Lydia (ID-3524). Each article is named by the ship's US Navy name, as they were begun as transcriptions from the DANFS. However, each ship is more notable for its shipwreck under a later name, so I suggest that the articles be moved to those names. Keresaspa became Malakoff, which in 1929 was wrecked off Menorca. 27 people were killed, and the ship now teems with marine life, which makes it a popular wreck diving site. Lydia became Manzoni, which a Fleet Air Arm Swordfish sank in 1940.

The Keresaspa article appears in the first page of internet search engine results for "SS Malakoff", so it could be argued that moving the article is not essential. However, the wreck still exists, known by the name Malakoff, so it would seem consistent to align the name of the article with the name by which she is currently best known. Manzoni was raised and scrapped; so her wreck no longer exists; hence the argument in her case may be less strong. However, I suggest that her being sunk in an air raid is perhaps the most notable event in her career, and thus her article should perhaps appear under her final name. I would be grateful for colleagues' opinions, before I figure out whether to move either article. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

In the absence of any replies either way, I have now moved USS Keresaspa to SS Malakoff. I have left USS Lydia (ID-3524) where it is for the time being. Motacilla (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS Notability Guidelines

A recent conversation on the Wikipedia Discord sever made me realize WP:SHIPS has no notability standard, which was surprising as I swear there was one. A quick search reveals other users mention the lack of guidelines, so having something on paper may be useful. I propose our own (short) guideline, in addition to WP:GNG, partially inspired by MILHIST's guideline at WP:NUNIT.

Of my understanding, the de-facto standard for notability applies for:

• Commissioned warships, ocean-going auxiliaries, and submarines of any Navy
• Large passenger vessels, such as ocean-going ferries, cruise ships, and ocean liners
• Museum ships
• Vessels that meet GNG, even if that there was no moment during the vessel's history that is notable on its own (for instance, Atlas)
• Ship classes of the above

It does not apply for:

• Small boats and vessels under 100 tons unless proven otherwise
• Vessels only featured in databases, such as Lloyds Register, U-boat.net, Wrecksite, or live ship trackers
• Unbuilt ships/warships, which are often redirected to a respective class article

Is there anything I missed? GGOTCC 02:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the length/tonnage limit is not related to notability, but project scope — we do not establish notability of boats and other smaller vessels because they are not in our scope. As for unbuilt ships/warships, I presume it refers to unbuilt examples of a built class of ships as completely unrealized projects can also be notable. Finally, in light of recent AfD discussion about Hondius I'd prefer if there was a more clearly-defined threshold for "large passenger ships" — would it be such a disaster if we simply treated commercial passenger-carrying vessels (i.e. not yachts or other private vessels) in the same way as commissioned naval ships — notable if they fall within project scope? Tupsumato (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Tupsumato is correct. 100'/100tons is the criteria for vessels coming under the scope of this WP/ It is perfectly possible for smaller vessels to be notable enough to sustain an article, such as Maud, but they do not fall under this WP. Although there is no presumptive notability, the vast majority of vessels are capable of meeting GNG. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand the criteria listed above, a major omission is any important cargo ship. Obviously not all of these are notable, but there are many clippers that have articles (Flying Cloud (clipper), Ariel (clipper), Taitsing (clipper), Fiery Cross (clipper), Thermopylae (clipper), etc., etc.), there are articles on technologically inovative steam ships (SS Aberdeen (1881), SS Agamemnon (1865)), and there must be examples that have passed me by. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Item 4, meets GNG. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, and the reason why I call out the GNG caveat. I have seen some users, in good faith, wonder why certain merchant ships have articles despite operating as "business as usual" for years without any sinking/battle/major event, which is something that I hope to clarify with a guideline. GGOTCC 02:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I hope your list of major events would include something like Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co, an important case that affected the shipping world until the European Union overturned it in 2008 over 100 years later. (In case it is not obvious, Aberdeen was one of the ships involved in trying to break the cartel involved.) I make this point because the output on merchant ships by this project rarely makes clear that these ships went to sea solely to make money. Aberdeen's article gave no explanation of her commercially successful use of triple expansion (spoiler alert: it was the boiler design) and nothing of her involvement in trying to break the Far Eastern Freight Conference cartel in article versions that existed before December 2021. The focus seemed to be on being sunk by a submarine. Perhaps an apparently "business as usual" merchant vessel has something notable about her role in commerce, rather than due to accidents and incidents. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is news to me, thank you. I thought the 100'/100t rule was notability, not WP:SHIPS scope. GGOTCC 02:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Once upon a time, it was presumed that ships over 100' or 100 tons displacement were automatically notable, as (again, once upon a time) individual wikiprojects and groups established specific notability guidelines, with GNG - the General Notability Guideline - covering everything else. At some point, over the years, things shifted to where GNG isn't "general as in not specific", but "general as in overall", and SNGs have been all but depreciated - everything must meet GNG or be deleted. Whether or not this is an improvement is left as an exercise to the reader. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Anything like this needs to include the caveat that it is frequently a valid editorial decision to handle commissioned warships with minimal service histories at a class article. For instance, I don't think having sub-stubs for CSS Wasp and CSS Hornet is more helpful than having short sections at the class article (Squib-class torpedo boat). Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, however, warships are national projects and should have inherent notability as major infrastructure projects do (like highways, airports, military units, etc.) but this is more directed at the merchant ship editors who create articles from Lloyd's list detailing regular sailings as somehow notable. Even ships that suffer a single sinking outside of war with low cost of life can cross into WP:ONEEVENT, much like a commercial building fire or an aircraft incident. Llammakey (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Kaag

Further information: WP:HD § Interlanguage link for (almost) nonexistent EN article

A query raised at the Help Desk reveals that we need an article for the ship type kaag. Not to be confused with the medieval cog. Anyone up for writing it? Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)