Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ships

Active discussions

Property proposalEdit

There are still quite a few property proposals that have a nearly empty template and have not been reviewed by the participants of this task force. In order to reduce the size (and load time) of the page I will put them here until they are filled in and/or the number datatype becomes available. I hope this will not cause any hard feelings, but most proposals are currently about ships and airplanes and many of them have been inactive for months. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposals waiting on datatypes and or filling in of templateEdit

See Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties.

Deletion of some properties proposalsEdit

After the creation of the property significant event (P793) the proposal about the keel laid date, the launch date and the completion date are deleted. Please use significant event (P793) and its talk page to define a correct way allowing to describe the key events of a ship. Snipre (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This task force currently has very little activity. You can just move the proposals to this talk page, and the next time somebody has time they can sort through them and see what they still need. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ship type itemEdit

Hi @Danrok: or whoever knows the field of ships... I have a question related to properties and classes of ships:

Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano (Q241858) is a ship of ship class (Q559026) Yamato-class battleship (Q554520). The latter is a type of aircraft carrier (Q17205), which in turn is... a subclass of ship. I believe that aircraft carrier (Q17205) should bear a statement instance of (P31) "ship type", similar to all ship types that get categorized in Category:Ship types (Q5827287) or Category:Ships by type (Q9779183). Is there already such an item "ship type", that would be an intermediate subclass between ship (Q11446) and ship class (Q559026)? If not, any objection to me creating such a type item? LaddΩ chat ;) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We did have a watercraft type property, but it was deleted after nomination. Danrok (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Danrok: I tend to agree with that suppression, property instance of (P31) combined with ship classes (and/or ship types, see next sentence) should be good enough.
I was rather looking for an existing Q-item - and I just found it via the German WP: ship type (Q2235308).
I now plan to:
  1. insert this category type in-between ship and ship class   Done
  2. use it to tag P31 on all sub-classes of ship (Q11446) that do not already derive from ship class (Q559026), such as: aircraft carrier (Q17205), carrack (Q220635)... Actually all those 176 items (excepting ship (Q11446) itself)   Done
  3. create missing ship types listed in Category:Ship types (Q5827287) or Category:Ships by type (Q9779183)
  4. ensure that all ship classes derive from one of the ship types (most should already be fine)
  5. locate all instances of ships that are plain instance of (P31) ship (Q11446) (no instance of (P31) ship class (Q559026)) and associate the right ship type to them, according to field "Ship type" from en:template:Infobox ship characteristics.
Again, comments welcome. LaddΩ chat ;) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What s a shipyard?Edit

Another question: many ships bear P198 (P198) leading to instance of (P31) shipyard (Q190928). I am expecting this property to rather lead to some instance of (P31) company (Q783794). Moreover, I see shipyards as places and thus would rather use location of creation (P1071) to indicate the shipyard.

My question is: shipyards are businesses building ships, or places where ships are built... or both? For info:

LaddΩ chat ;) 18:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ships and shipyards predate company law, so no, not all shipbuilders are or were businesses in the modern sense. Apparently, "The world's earliest known dockyards were built in the Harappan port city of Lothal circa 2400 BC in Gujarat, India.". Also, some modern shipyards might not be businesses, for example Russian yards during the Soviet era, or Chatham Dockyard which built ships for the Royal Navy, funded by the monarchy. So, I would say that primarily shipyards are places, but also consist of workers - a place can't build a ship. But, not all ships are built in shipyards. They could be built by a community, on a beach, without a yard. So, location of creation (P1071) isn't a substitute for P198 (P198), but may be useful for supplemental information, i.e. the place within a large shipyard where the ship was built, or if the P198 (P198) is specified as a company with more than one yard, use location of creation (P1071) to indicate the yard location (sometimes this is the the name of a port city, etc.).

In any case, just specify the ship builder as found in sources, whether it be a yard or some other type of entity. Danrok (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Danrok: thanks, clear and neat. I'll resolve this conflict by making shipyard (Q190928) a type of organization (Q43229) and expanding target type from P198 (P198) to include all organizations.
My main problem with P198 (P198) values originated from automatic imports from items like en:Reine-class patrol vessel, where the shipyard is indicated in text (no link) but where a WP link exists to the city where the shipyard is located. The import generated lots of P198 (P198)=cities and discarded the info on the shipyard name. I manually moved the links to cities to property location of creation (P1071) and still need to figure out how to create items from these textual template fields. LaddΩ chat ;) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Property proposals: MarineTrafficEdit

I've just made a pair of related proposals for vessels and port identifiers in the MarineTraffic database. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of P198Edit

Just to inform you that the property P198 (P198) will be deleted after move of the statements to manufacturer (P176). A bot will be requested to perform the property change. Snipre (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Call sign and Design engineersEdit

I've suggested that designed by (P287) can also be used for design engineers/constructors and will start applying this to Swedish ships/types/classes with known constructors unless there are any objections.

Also please take a look at the suggestion for a call sign property or the expansion of the scope of callsign of airline (P432) so that this can also be used for ships. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a good idea to use designed by (P287) for the ship designers for all types of designer (interior, exterior, ship architect). I'd also recommend using the applies to part (P518) qualifier to indicate which part of the ship the designer was responsible for. So, applies to part (P518) = interior (Q2998430) if they were responsible for the interior design. Danrok (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016Edit

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Importing ship dataEdit

Hi @Danrok, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Jason Evans, Wikipedia in residence at National Library of Wales, has obtained some data relating to 19th century commercial shipping from Aberystwyth port, which includes information such as the names of ships, their tonnage, destinations, crew and journey dates. I've already identified that some of the data is useful and some is most likely out of scope of Wikidata, but this is obviously the perfect place to discuss it and make some final decisions on what (if anything) should be imported. Just wanted to send this initial message to check if you are still active here before I start posting in questions and links to the data etc? Best wishes NavinoEvans (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@NavinoEvans: I'm interested! Danrok (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks @Danrok:! Here is a link to the project info on the National Library of Wales side. It's basically a large set of spreadsheets that have been transcribed from paper records by volunteers. Some background about the plans discussed so far:
I've already explained to Jason Evans that the spreadsheets in their current form are not good for any mass importing of data, and that quite a bit will be out of scope. They will be happy to organise the data in a format we can use, so it's just about deciding what is useful for Wikidata.
It will be the data about the ships themselves that will be of use, so the basic aim initially is to:
  • Create a spreadsheet with a row for each ship they have records for, Column 1 being the name of the ship, with any data that we can add for each ship shown in subsequent columns
  • Then match them to Wikidata items where the ships already exists, and create the missing one's if they are deemed valuable to Wikidata.
  • Finally add the statements to each of the ships using the data from the spreadsheet (presumably using Magnus' QuickStatements tool).
So, the questions to resolve before getting them to reorganise the spreadsheets are:
  1. Are all of the ships notable enough to have Wikidata items?
  2. Is the ship master for each ship notable enough to add to Wikidata? (I've already explained that adding all of the crew member data would not be welcome, as we'd need a new item for each of them and it seems out of scope)
  3. What other data can we add for each ship? This may just be the "port of registry" and "Official number" shown in the spreadsheet (property needing creating for the latter I think).
I know absolutely nothing about ships! so I'm hoping you're able to shed a bit of light on these questions :) NavinoEvans (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@NavinoEvans: There's no rules regarding notability of vessels for Wikidata. My view is, if we have some good reliable data we have nothing to lose by including it. For each ship the unique ID is the most important data, in this case "official number" which is unique within a country. We don't really need crew lists, but could link to the library website as the source, so the crew lists can be found there if someone wants them. Other data we would want would be the "port of registry", but ideally with start and end dates. If they have any basic specs for the ships then that would be helpful, e.g. length overall, gross tonnage, the shipyard which built it, and vessel type (of some sort, e.g. sail, steamer, etc.). Any of the ship's data that they may have, could be included, we can always discard anything in the spreadsheet which we don't need. Danrok (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, that all makes perfect sense. I'll keep you posted on the progress here, and post in a link to some organised spreadsheet data when we reach that stage. Then we we can select the data that will be used and propose any properties (if necessary). All the best, NavinoEvans (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely interested, but a little slow of the bat, clearly! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Great! @Danrok, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: This is now being tracked on the new Partnerships and data imports discussion page. I'll report back here if any new questions or discussion point come up. NavinoEvans (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Danrok, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:. I am ready to upload this collection to wikidata, but i am unsure which property to use to describe each ships 'Official number' - a unique number which was given to every UK merchant ship. Initially i thought to use 'inventory number' but as you will see above, it was suggested that a new property be created. A discussion about this is happening here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Hi. Just to update you, i have recently improved the data for these shipping records, here is an example entry Q24026938. We are planning on a small project to locate and add images for as many of these ships as we can soon, and are also interested in adding ships owners and builders. Would they be considered notable enough for Wikidata? I have the same question about ships masters. I know the rest of the crew would not be relevant to Wikidata, but what about the masters (with start and end times)? I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback on these points and on the shape of the data so far. Cheers Jason.nlw (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jason.nlw: Yes, you should create items for owners and builders, this allows for the data to be more complete and useful. The only issue to consider when creating items for say ship masters, is that you need to have enough data to uniquely identify a person. Otherwise we risk creating 10 Richard Jones items where all of them might be the same person. If the source does not provide enough info, then we could consider going about it another way, e.g. a new property such as "ship master's name" (instead of a linked item). Danrok (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

mandatory propertiesEdit

We say that it is mandatory to have a short name for an individual ship. I'm confused by this. What is a short name for a ship, compared to the normal name? How do we handle ships that had multiple names? For a ship like this Scottish ferry Q6720023 what should the short name and item name be? Should the item name be something fixed like its ISO number? Secretlondon (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

First try for a ship, reviewed neededEdit


I tried to add some data on Abel Tasman (Q20723138), can someone reviewed it? It's loosely based on Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties but I'm not sure to understand everything, for example for length (P2043) and width (P2049), I used qualifiers which seemed more logical to me.

For the context, I intend to improve items about other ship who will be at Brest 2016 (Q20971895) (I'll be there).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Property proposalEdit

See Wikidata:Property proposal/sister ship. Amqui (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Instance of what?Edit

Vasco de Gama (Q1829694) is instance of Statendam-class cruise ship (Q19831393), which makes sense since that's the most specific subclass of ships. But most other ships are just instance of a ship type, like cruise ship (Q39804). Which way is best? Ghouston (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Flag, nationalityEdit

Hello, I saw there is properties such as port of registry and home port, however I don't see nothing about the countries. Websites such as give always the "flag" but not always the home port example, you can read " Flag: Tanzania [TZ] " same thing in Commons; ships are always sailing under flags. Is there currently a property to indicate the registration country of a ship? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


I think that deadweight tonnage should be an available property for the ships, it is always given by specialist website such as, example [1], it is a characteristic of each ships. I wanted to post my request into Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties missing, but I'm not sure to understand how work this page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Property proposal: ENI numberEdit

See Wikidata:Property proposal/ENI number. -- Reise Reise (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Same ship by different namesEdit

What is the preferred method for dealing with ships that have multiple items due to being named differently at different points in their lives? Example: Varyag (Q16979335) and Liaoning (Q129200). It seems we can't rightly merge them since both Commons and some Wikis maintain separate articles for them. Also it doesn't seem appropriate to arbitrarily put one under the other. Should we have one item for the ship overall and then individual items for specific spans of that ship's history? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

tonnage (Q491774)Edit

Abans de res vull reconèixer que no tinc ni idea de com demanar una propietat nova. Volia preguntar-vos sí és possible crear una nova propietat que representes tonnage (Q491774) para utilitzar-la com a «propietat contenidora». El motiu és que hi ha molts tipus de mesurar la capacitat d'un vaixell que han evolucionat amb el temps: de gross register ton (Q752079) s'ha passat a gross tonnage (Q2719498) i de net register tonnage (Q6998519) a net tonnage (Q1781855); amés s'han d'afegir altres sistemes minoritaris com Thames Measurement (Q1032316) o Builder's Old Measurement (Q1394540). Actualment només hi ha dues propietats per aquest mesurament: gross tonnage (P1093) i net tonnage (P2790), el que deixa sense possibilitar pujar a WD dades anteriors a l'entrada en vigor d'aquests sistemes de mesura. Davant d'aquesta mancança només trobo dues solucions, crear una propietat per cada tipus de mesurament o demanar una propietat més genèrica amb possibilitats de servir com a «contenidor» a l'estil de significant event (P793) utilitzant el qualificador criterion used (P1013) amb els possibles sistemes de mesura: gross tonnage (Q2719498), net tonnage (Q1781855), gross register ton (Q752079), net register tonnage (Q6998519)... Com ho veieu? Gràcies.--Kette~cawiki (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What are the best modelled items for your areas of interest?Edit

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.


John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bulk import from AIS data?Edit

Hi! I have accumulated a large amount of AIS data while working on an art project. You can see part of that effort on Twitter. Would Wikidata want a bulk import of ships and/or ports based on that data? For example, I could pretty easily extract something like every ship over 100m in length. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ship rechristeningEdit

Hi, being a very occassional Wikidata user without expertise in ships I left a question in Wikidata:Project chat#Alternative ship name: qualifier?. The answer was accompanied by an advise to check in with experts for another opinion, so here I am. Anyone willing to comment should feel free to move the text to the Ship project talk if that helps to settle the issue.

Btw, in tandem with my question I have proposed to take the act of renaming as the basic data type, not so much the actual name that a ship has at any given time. That's because of a data analist's love of clean data and not based on any knowledge of naval issues of course, so I will not engage in lengthy discussion on this topic. — bertux 19:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance after data importEdit

Feel free to add yourself to this list. User:Danrok Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) Rama Christian Ferrer Nortix08 Andrawaag Cavernia De728631

  Notified participants of WikiProject Ships Thousands of ship items have been created or updated by fetching ship data from external sources. In addition, a new property is introduced to restructure the links to Commons (category for ship name (P7782)).

Detect and merge duplicate items
By running a query I found that 3638 items has a label containing "IMO" without having IMO ship number (P458) set, and when comparing this to the list of all IMO numbers, I found 626 duplicates. Using QuickStatements is appearently the easiest way to merge the items, but in a lot of cases both items have a link to Commons (IMO and ship name). As only one link is allowed, this will not leave the item empty, which eventually makes the redirect fail. Any good idea to a workaround here? --Cavernia (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cavernia: The items linked to via category for ship name (P7782) should be instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836), and probably shouldn't have IMO numbers in the category item. Pi bot (talkcontribslogs) will create new category items based on the IMO categories on Commons, so providing the ship name commons category is within the IMO commons category then it should be fine to remove the ship name commons category and merge the items. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Yes, removing the links to the ship name categories is the solution here, but I don't know how to make the script to do that. --Cavernia (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cavernia: If you have a list of QIDs, I can run through them with python. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: As I now have added IMO ship number (P458) to all the unique entries, the query should now only return the duplicates. I can't guarantee there are some entries which only have the link to the IMO category, so maybe your script can skip deletion of these sitelinks? --Cavernia (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cavernia: OK, I'm starting to work through these. There seem to be some complicated cases, so I'm stepping through them slowly, the python script will merge the duplicates as I go. One issue I've spotted is that you seem to be creating new duplicates, e.g. Hanna (Q83557036), please add the information to the existing item rather than creating a new one! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Yes, I knew there was a chance that I was going to make some duplicates when running the batch that created about 5.000 new ship items, but since I did not link them to Commons, they should be easy to merge. However, I had underestimated how many Commons Category items there were recently created without IMO ship number (P458) set. Of course, I should have added the IMO numbers first, then imported the rest. --Cavernia (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cavernia, MB-one: Fair enough. Most of the cases should now be fixed, there are 37 that remain and need manual checking. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Thanks! I will look into the remaining duplicates. --Cavernia (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove duplicate entries
Data has been imported to items that already contained data, and when the value is not identical (i.e. 89,0 m instead of 89 m), a new entry is created.
To make it easier to detect the items with duplicate entries, the following queries can be used:

- duplicate entries for length (P2043)
- duplicate entries for width (P2049)
- duplicate entries for draft (P2262)
- duplicate entries for payload mass (P4519)
- duplicate entries for gross tonnage (P1093)

We also have more than 2000 ship items with mass (P2067) set, which is the wrong place for deadweight. My suggestion is to delete all the entries. --Cavernia (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Completing existing items with images and data
There are now thousands of ship items linked to a Commons category, but with no image set. This process can't be fully automated as not all images can be used. In 2018 I found a way to do this semi-automated, when I get time I will try to run this process over again. I'm still working on completing other data from external sources, like manufacturer (P176), service entry (P729), yard number (P617) and port of registry (P532). --Cavernia (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus about container capasity
twenty-foot equivalent unit (Q488021) is a unit for measuring the capacity of a container ship. When considering adding this to a ship item, I find several properties in use:

The last one is the one I would prefer, but twenty-foot equivalent unit (Q488021) is not an allowed unit for this property. --Cavernia (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

When matching ship data from external databases to existing items, some mismatches have been detected.
@MB-one‎: Can you check Mackinac Bridge (Q12568), Hyundai Grace (Q623562), Henry Hudson Bridge (Q7718385), Jakarta Tower (Q1431627), Q9675779, Q3062271, San Francisco Bay Bridge (Q60083618), GrandVision (Q15812731), COSCO SHIPPING Ports (Q5013500), Christopher (Q30601121) and Lotus (Q28220408)? --Cavernia (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship names used more than once
Many ships have been imported with not only the current name, but historical names as well. Some ships have had the same name during several periods, which makes a technical challenge when importing the start and stop date as these qualificators then will be added to the existing entry. Example Ant (Q52329748). Is it better to remove all the entries, then import them again using the new QuickStatement tool? --Cavernia (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship breaking
There are now two different ways to add information about ship breaking:

Which is preferable? --Cavernia (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Forms in CradleEdit


I asked if someone is interested in creating forms in Wikidata:Cradle for a specific topic in the Project Chat. I think that forms are a way to easy create an item. Is someone here interested in creating a form. Please tell me what you think about that. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

IMO numbers and ship namesEdit

(Discussion moved from Talk:Q885761:

@De728631: With the creation of category for ship name (P7782), the idea is that we sitelink the main item to the Commons category for the IMO number (here, c:Category:IMO 9186338), and then have a separate 'category' item for the ship name, here Category:Blue Marlin (ship, 2000) (Q83954886), which links to c:Category:Blue Marlin (ship, 2000) - more can then be added to handle the multiple names the ship has been known under. That way we can have infoboxes in both categories (ideally getting rid of the manual text in the IMO category in this case). Does that make sense? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Imho it would make sense if there weren't dedicated WD items for the IMO categories too. These should rather be linked to existing IMO categories at Commons, but it won't work if Commons Category:IMO 6789123 is already linked to another item at Wikidata. Moreover, a ship may change its name while the IMO number is retained throughout the lifetime of the hull. So, I'm sorry but having one name item as "the main item" to sitelink to the IMO number doesn't make sense at all to me. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: "if there weren't dedicated WD items for the IMO categories too" - as far as I'm aware there aren't dedicated items for IMO categories? Can you point to an example, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: E.g. Q28228009, Q1406414, Q25386771 and so forth. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks. I have questions. Those items seem to be analogous to this one: they are summarising the ship, but the English labels aren't matching what I would call the 'common name' of the ship based on the sitelinks, which seems odd. Should this item be renamed to 'IMO 9186338'? More tomorrow. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: If the item refers to an IMO number then the label should reflect it and not reference one single name. And the common name may or may not inlude prefixes like MV, MS or some such, if that is what bothers you. Sitelinking is another common issue though with IMO numbers. Some people seem to think that it is a good idea to link Wikipedia articles for a specific ship name to the IMO number. The misconception seems to be that where there is one article on a ship, it is synonymous with the IMO number. I have now fixed this problem for the three items above, and placed the interwiki links into the item of the relevant ship name. Now for this item, I wouldn't rename it to 'IMO 9186338' but rather leave it at the current label and remove the link to the IMO Commons category. I think IMO number items can be used to collect renamed ships, and a ship name item should be an "instance of" 'IMO 9186338'. This is especially useful for renamed ships, and very basic properties that don't change throughout the ship's lifetime, like inception, subclass of, manufacturer, yard number etc. may then be used in the IMO item. Name-specific properties like port of registry, call sign and so on should be put into the named item.
On another note, I think it would be prudent to make Property:P458 fit into the "instance of" class. That way it would not only be an identifier for a specific ship name, but could also serve as a container for the IMO items. Would that be technically possible? De728631 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: I think there's a few misconceptions there - in particular, article sitelinks should not be on category items, and there's no point creating items for IMO numbers as well as the ships themselves. Would it be OK if we moved this discussion to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ships to get more views? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I haven't seen any article sitelinks on category items yet as in "Category:XYZ (Q12345)", and this also not what I meant above. As to "there's no point creating items for IMO numbers as well as the ships themselves", I have to agree that we don't really need IMO number items – IMO category items will suppposedly be created though to match the categories at Commons. Ships, however, may change their name and purpose throughout the lifetime of the hull, the hull may be elongated or shortened once a ships gets sold and renamed, whereas the IMO No. will remain the same all the time. So ships do need to have their individual WD items which may well share the same IMO identifier. But please feel free to move this discussion as it could benefit from more input. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Moved, I hope others can comment on this, particularly @Cavernia, MB-one: given the thread above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
MS Iona (Q28228009) is just an item for the ship, which for some reason has been labelled with the IMO number instead of the current name, as is usually done. Ghouston (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The odd thing with the "IMO items" listed above, is that Wikipedia articles have been linked to category items, which is wrong of course. I fixed MS Iona (Q28228009). Ghouston (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Ships".