Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maritime Trades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject
Maritime Trades

General information

Main project page

Talk

→ Infoboxes

→ Stubs

Major categories

Nautical Portal

Departments

Assessment

→ Disputes

→ List

Resources

Peer review

Photography

edit · changes

Maritime Trades Toolbar

Invite	Talk	Logs	Edit	Add	Assess

Shortcut: WT:MTD

[edit] What's on your mind?

As the project is just getting started, please don't be shy. Share what's on your mind with the group! Cheers. Haus42 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek fleet

Hey, i am new to wikipedia and preety much confused :D If i am not supposed to edit this part sorry! But i wanted to raise some concerns regarding the tonnage and total ship numbers registered under greek flag, i think the number is by far greater than the one mentioned. This is my source: http://www.amb-grece.fr/economie/la_grece_et_la_marine.htm It mentions 1,558 REGISTERED and 3.025 OWNED. I have other sources too, but they are Greek pages so their neutrality might be questioned. Thank you! Fotis2005 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The CIA statistics are for ships 1000GRT (Gross Register Tons) and more. The Lloyds statistics you cite are for ships 100GRT and more. So, I'm pretty sure the difference in our numbers is the number of ships between 100GRT and 1000GRT. Does that make sense? Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you are right, thanks for clearing this up! Fotis2005 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merchant Navy/Merchant Marine Redirects

The Merchant Navy now re-directs to Ship transport. I think it's a bad move - why not use the IMO term: shipping? Yosy 14:12, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Valid point, and I almost did that. It might be the right thing to do. What stopped me is this: if you Google shipping, the first few results that come back are UPS, USPS, and FedEx.

The first step would be to put in these two templates:

{{mergeto|Shipping}} on Ship transport
{{mergefrom|Ship transport}} on Shipping

And in case we can't come up with a consensus, we can propose it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Anyone have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the templates and put a poll up at Talk:Shipping regarding this proposed merge. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project scope?

Haus, can you further explain the scope of WikiProject Maritime Trades project? Are we talking all things maritime, which the Major Categories item in the info box suggests? Or are we focused upon maritime occupations as suggested by project title and recent project articles? Irregardless, I like your approach of collaboration. --Fishdecoy 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely open to debate. My original idea was "Everything dealing with working on the water." But there are other WikiProjects that cover many of the subject areas. So think of it like doing a subtraction: (Everything dealing with working on the water) - (Navy) - (Ships) - (Shipwrecks) - (Lighthouses). So, for example, a Jet Ski would probably not qualify. Nate Bowditch worked on the water, so he would. You use a GPS or a sextant or a needlegun, so they qualify. Whaddya think? Haus^Talk 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Helpful. Thanks. I added the Ice pier article to the project based upon your scope description above.--Fishdecoy 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) on topic, especially since the merchant fatalities were greater than even the submariners? rmo13 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I came across Michael Eavis which is tied to your project, but the connection is minimal, so please review and delete the template on the Talk page if you agree. Derek Andrews 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AB (occupation) and AB (rank)

This is a copy of a point User:KAM brought up at Talk:Able Seaman (occupation). I wanted to copy it here and see if there are any feelings on i:

This page and Able Seaman (rank) were split from Able Seaman. Haus42 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should not be split between two equal articles. There is some overlap in the terms usage, at least historically. Should the main article be AB with a link to the Naval rating. KAM 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a lot of unilateral changes in a short period of time to try to structure the merchant shipping articles. So, I tried to err on the side of cautiousness. I'll copy this suggestion at Maritime Trades and we can see if there are any opinions. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record KAM's suggestion was followed a couple of weeks ago. Haus^Talk 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typical ship transport occupations

Content for articles listed in the "Typical ship transport occupations" template at the bottom of project articles such as Harbor pilot, Chief Engineer, etc. is distinctively maritime. However, the model falls apart with articles such as Carpenter and Electrician. Shouldn't we create new pages that are unique to the maritime trades for those few example? For instance, maritime occupation content would go into Carpenter (nautical) or Carpenter (maritime).--Fishdecoy 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, like with Captain (nautical). User:Frelke mentioned that he really disliked parenthesized titles, which I thought was a good point, but I still haven't thought of a better approach. Something like Marine electrician or Ship's carpenter might be possibilities. Any thoughts? Haus^Talk 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge FOWT?

Hi folks, something similar to Fishdecoy's post above has been bugging me for a while. Oiler (occupation) isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it is probably in "start-class." There is no "Marine fireman" article. There is no "Watertender" article. Wiper is very much a stub. So my question is this: do you think we should a) create a merged F/O/WT article, and b) should we merge Wiper in with FOWT? This area is a real blind spot for me. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French speakers?

fr:Utilisateur:CaptainHaddock runs the extremely well done fr:Projet:Maritime and has suggested we do some collaboration. He's not completely comfortable in English, and his English is at least a couple of notches above my French. But there's a lot of room for helping each other out. I've already "borrowed" some stuff, like this. But there's room for much more. For instance, check out their Ship and Bulker articles -- top notch. Anybody have a black belt in French? Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am also quite active on the French project along with CaptainHaddock, and my English isn't too bad (I actually live in England), so maybe I can give a hand at some point. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you need some stuff translated. I was also responsible to a large extent for the "Ship" and "Bulker" articles, and I would welcome any comments to help improve them ; just because they are FA doesn't mean they can't be improved ! Thanks, le Korrigan ^bla 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I expected that post to sit there for months. A few notes: I borrowed most of fr:Amarrage (maritime) for a rewrite of Mooring (anchoring) today. I think Ship/fr:Bateau is our biggest need, if you have any interest in chipping in on that it would really be appreciated. Our highest rated articles are listed here, and you're more than welcome to them. Other than that, thanks for chiming in, and, well, enjoy the roastbif! :) Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a potential issue would be the distinction between ship and boat, which is far more pronounced in English than in French (I actually devoted all the first part of the article to the definition of a "bateau"). I'm not 100% sure about what should go in Boat or Ship... I'm currently working on different cargo ship types (Multipurpose cargo ship, Reefer, etc.), maybe some material could be sought from there. I'm using mainly sources in English anyway :-) Finally, I just improved the List of ship types, with fishing vessels and leisure crafts still missing. If it can give some inspiration, feel free to use it ! Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk carrier

With help and encouragement from User:Korrigan, I translated the French featured article fr:Vraquier and merged it into Bulk carrier. It still has some problems. Primarily, due to my difficulty in simultaneously reading French and writing English, it reads like it was written by Inspector Clouseau. It lost about 1/3 of its references and citations in the process of translation. ~~so it probably needs a good peppering with {{fact}} templates.~~ ~~The section on Hull Reinforcements probably needs to be retranslated from scratch.~~ Also, there's a subsection on regulations that I left out. All that said, the article has real potential, and could really benefit from TLC. Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting, but I guess it still sounds a lot French :-) Also remember that I tend to be biased as I often adopt the point of view of a naval architect; in this article, I did my best to cover all topics, but having other people involved will surely help. Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ports POV

The articles about ports seem to be heavily influenced by port authority or economic development online blurbs. These tend to be a bit feel good and corporate oriented. My sense is that port articles are low priority, but New York Harbor already has specific reference to maritime trades. rmo13 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I poked around Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ports and it looks like that project might be inactive. I'll post this to the ports talk page and see if anybody responds. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(A belated response) True. Ports articles tend to get overwhelmed by the economic and infrastructure stats (trade volumes, berth depths etc). Corporate cheerleading is also easily introduced via port authority webpages, while industry publications and other independent sources tend to be dry as dust and/or subscription only.

As a start in fixing this, I'm trying to introduce a "History" section to each ports article to give them a flavour other than simply a recitation of trade stats. Most ports are associated with a city or region so there are also opportunities for sections on the influence of one on the other in terms of employment, character and development. This is a long process but there are rewards - the history of the Port of Singapore for example, adds a great deal to the overall article.

In summary - you're completely correct but with a bit of collaboration and research there's maybe hope for improvement. Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] aid to navigation vs. seamark

Greetings, all. I came to here from the lighthouses project after coming up with some read links. There seem to be some terminological issues which I would like to help resolve.

As far as I can tell, the standard term is "aid to navigation". It is what the USCG uses, and what the IALA uses. I cannot say for the British admiralty because I can't find anything where they don't want to charge you money for an answer (cheapscapes). However, conversely I cannot find any evidence of use of the term "seamark". It doesn't appear on the USCG website, for instance, and it doesn't readily turn up in Google. I'd like to help overhaul the overall article, but right now I'm wary of starting without making this article move, and I want to make sure that I'm not miles/lm off base on the terminology. Mangoe 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Seamark" is a very old term for "tideline", the mark left on the beach by the high tide. "Seamark" is also used to describe a raised marker that warns of dangerous waters. I suppose that works ok to describe the buoyage system, but the term most of us are familiar with is "Aid to Navigation." I think the article should be moved, but would like to see some more discussion first. seatalker (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template ATSBLink

Just a quick note that I have just finished the ATSBLink template, which is now fully documented and ready to use. This is designed to consistently link to accident and incident reports published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and covers all their reporting types from rail, air, and sea. If anyone has suggestions or improvments, don't hesitate to pitch in or get in touch. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD Port categories

Hi. I have kicked off a serious CFD about port categories. Any comments/input appreciated. Frelke 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radar FAR

Radar has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposition for the title

I've been thinking and clearly "Ship transport" is a somewhat ugly title; also "shipping", the offcial IMO term, can (and does) refer to the transportation of goods outside the maritime branch. So I prupose changing "Ship transport" to "Shipping (maritime)". I think this is the best move. Yosy 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petroleum tankers page

Hi guys, I've merged the Supertankers page into the Petroleum tankers page and given it a pretty thorough kicking adding in history and so on. Please visit and give it s further kicking. Cheers - Jimmec 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (by the way, I support Yosy's suggestion, above). Jimmec 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have given a re-order to the petroleum tankers page in a way that seemed to make more sense to me. Deleted 'characteristics of supertankers' on the grounds that (a) 'supertanker' is a lay term, not an official term and (b) wasn't very verifiable. Consider - 'the characteristics of a VLCC are that it can carry 2 billion barrels of oil and has a deadweight of 300,000+; then compare that to the deleted text 'supertankers have poor maneuverability'. Poor maneuverability in relation to what? An Aframax has poor maneuverability in relation to a speedboat, certainly, but is much better than a ULCC. And in what sea-conditions? etc etc. Cheers Jimmec 10:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of days banging on it. It's teetering on the edge of being a B-article, but it still needs quite a lot of work. As always open to suggestions. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General maritime wikiproject???

Is there a general maritime wikiproject (i've tried searching) covering things like UNCLOS, Containerisation, stcw-95/maritime qualifications (international and local), terms such as eez etc etc should there be a broad umbrella project for all those things or does this project tend to do that??? --Nengscoz416 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be the right project for those sorts of topics. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk question

Someone has asked on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk the names of the many different jobs there are on the docks. What do you call a crane operator, for instance? I poked around the internet a bit, but I couldn't find anything like a list right away, so I'm hoping someone here will either know where to find such a list or would like to answer on the RefDesk. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was surprisingly hard to answer. As far as I know, the guy who, for example, drives the straddle-stacker is called "The Guy that Drives The Straddle Stacker." Ships have job titles that aren't self-explanatory, like Bosun and Pumpman. I'm not aware of special job titles like that amongst dockers. I left some pointers to some job functions at the Miscellaneous Reference Desk Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadweight tonnage standardization

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#DWT about standardizing deadweight tonnage usage. In a nutshell, DWT can be used to express deadweight in tons (long tons) and tonnes (metric tons). If this kind of discussion floats your proverbial boat, please chime in. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Wight ferry services

I put a comment on the Talk:Wightlink page. I was wondering if anyone had any opinions. I have sufficient references to start the article. Has anyone else got an interest in this area?Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means, be WP:BOLD. If I understand correctly, the issue is: "We shouldn't cram the 160 years of ferry history into an article about an 18-year-old company." The name Isle of Wight ferry service seems to match with established usage, i.e. Toronto Island ferry services and Hobart Ferry Services. IMHO, you're on the right track. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You understand exactly and have summerised the issue much better than I did. Thanks for the links. I shall get started on the page. Criticism and assistance will be gladly received. Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cruise ships

Are the terms Merchant Navy and Merchant Marine used to include cruise ships? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see British Merchant Navy and United States Merchant Marine. In practice, you'd call the ships "merchant ships" or "merchant vessels" and the crew something like "mariners," "merchant mariners" or "merchant seamen." Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Merchant Marine Portal

Borrowing heavily from P:USN, I roughed out a United States Merchant Marine Portal this afternoon. Questions, comments, suggestions, and collaborators welcome. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of 57 Navigational Stars

I was surprised to see that we are missing a list of the 57 Navigational stars on Wikipedia, so I added it yesterday. The list is now linked to from the Celestial navigation article and also from the List of stars article. Alexander Falk 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work — I added to the project. The list is close enough to the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria that you should consider seeking featured list status for it. Also, figs. 1533-1536 from Bowditch 2002 might add context. Haus^Talk 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

- I followed your suggestion and submitted it for seeking featured list status - please see Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Navigational_stars for the corresponding discussion and changes I already made to the list in response to suggestions from the reviewers. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational stars

The list Navigational stars is a current Featured list candidate. As of May 19, the nominator is taking a three week Wikibreak. It would be a shame for the list not to be promoted because the nom is unavailable so if anyone who is part of the project would like to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Navigational stars and perhaps address any outstanding comments, the Wiki community would be grateful. Regards to all here, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)