Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

---

Austro-Hungarian U-boat names

In the above discussion about U-boat naming conventions, the Austro-Hungarian U-boats were touched upon, but I'm not sure a clear consensus evolved. The current naming style seems to be "Austro-Hungarian submarine U-nnn" where nnn is in Roman numerals, as in Austro-Hungarian submarine U-IV. As pointed out above, Austria-Hungary used Arabic numerals on their subs and some sources also use Arabic numerals, while other sources used Roman numerals as, perhaps, an editorial decision to distinguish them from German U-boats names. It was also pointed out that Austro-Hungarian submarines used the prefix SM (as was the case with German World War I submarines).

If Austria-Hungary used prefixes, then our naming convention says that we should use them as well. So the question then becomes which of these do we use:

• SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary), using Arabic numerals (as they were referred to at the time) and adding the appropriate "Austria-Hungary" or "Germany" disambiguators as necessary
• SM U-IV, using Roman numerals per some sources

Which of these is preferred? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

While I prefer the second option just because of the appeal of immediate visual differentiation, we should probably use the first option if that is what the KUK used itself. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly either way, but I am leaning towards the first option, per Kralizec!'s reasoning. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Same opinion, let's follow the designation used by the KUK. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the first option with Arabic numerals, for the reasons I laid out in earlier discussions above. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 10:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy to go with the first, as per actual usage. Benea (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce naming conflicts

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Proposal to reduce naming conflicts - avoid preemptive disambiguation which would have an impact on this guideline. --PBS (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Military ships guidelines is inconsistent with Wikipedia naming conventions

The guideline for Military ships "for ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix" is currently to "name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)". This is so inconsistent with Wikipedia general naming guideline and conventions I don't know where to begin. First of all, Wikipedia article titles are supposed to convey the most common name of the topic of the given article, with additional information for precision only when necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name (per WP:PRECISION), and even then only when the given topic is not primary usage for the name in question. Having the ship names prefixed with (Nationality) (type) in the article titles means the titles are not conveying the most common name of the article topic, and/or include additional precision unnecessarily (unless of course there is an actual conflict with other uses of the ship name). This practice is inconsistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. I suggest the guideline be changed to clearly say that only the name of the ship should be the article title unless disambiguation is necessary. Additional information for precision, like the name of the country or even the type of the ship, should be provided in parenthesis to clearly distinguish the name from the information specified for disambiguation, and should only be there when necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as per Naming conventions (country-specific topics) the county name is supposed to be included in the article title. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that on a procedural level, your statement that NC-SHIP is "inconsistent" with other naming conventions is not exactly breaking news. The WP:COMMONNAME you quoted above clearly states that "except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" ... and much like WP:AIR/NC, NC-SHIP is one of the listed exceptions. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That country-specific topics convention has to do with topics that have names that all countries have in common, like "history", so we have [[History of Countryname]]. Besides, such a title is arguably the name of the topic of the given article (e.g., History of Portugal). That convention has no application to topics that already have unique names, and for which "of Countryname" is clearly not part of the name of that topic. I know that there are classes of names that are exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME. Such exceptions make sense for classes for which there are no clear most common names for all or almost all members of the class, or for which there are conflicts for all or almost all most common names of members of the class. It makes no sense for ship names, for which many have unique most common names. But this guideline for military ships is particularly problematic. It's almost like someone liked the ship prefix (like "USS ...") convention so much (note that "USS ..." is arguably part of the name of the ship), that they decided to invent one for ships of countries that don't have a standard prefix... --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of invented prefixes, like IJN for ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy (which did not use that or any prefix), is addressed in the naming conventions where it says "Do not make up a ship prefix for a navy that did not use one". — Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To reply to this: "Such exceptions make sense for classes for which there are no clear most common names for all or almost all members of the class, or for which there are conflicts for all or almost all most common names of members of the class. It makes no sense for ship names, for which many have unique most common names.", I would posit that nearly every ship ever built would fall into the former category, not the latter; ships are named for other things, be it states/provinces/cities/people/etc. Therefore, disambiguation is necessary approaching 100% of the time, so naming conventions like this are required. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation may be required for most ship names, but that doesn't mean that everything in the kitchen sink needs to be in the title; it should still try to reflect the name of the topic as much as is reasonable possible. See my Neither comment in this proposal for an example of how absurd this military ship guideline is. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you're proposing that we rename over 21,000 articles? The current conventions may not be perfect but they're in place after years of work. There have been recent changes made to German submarines and others to clarify. We also try to follow official military naming guidelines whenever possible. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. For a start none of the guidelines you linked to in your opening statement actually support anything of what you claim. "additional information for precision only when necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name (per WP:PRECISION)" - it doesn't say anything like that. In fact our current titles are very precisely titled. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say anything about types of disambiguators. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is also a bizarre appeal as has been pointed out, ships are named after things, people, places, etc. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC again does not say anything about types of disambiguation. The name of HMS Victory is 'Victory', the prefix is HMS which serves as a disambiguator for other types of Victory. Are we to have Victory (HMS 1739)? These article names have been standardised, across all of the world's navies across their entire seafaring history, as simply as possible, and so they all work in relation to each other. Whether it's a Russian submarine from the 1990s, an American cruiser from the 1920s, an Argentinian frigate from the 1870s, a French sloop from the 1790s, or a British bark from the 1650s. Because we could remove some disambiguation from some titles (but not nearly all of them as you originally seemed to think) you would happily break this standardisation. I realise you have a particular bias towards removing what you see as unnecessary disambiguation, but none of your proposals have gained any consensus, and consequently are not supported by policies or guidelines. Benea (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all current ship articles "titles are very precisely titled", whether that precision is necessary or not. That's the problem you're searching for. WP:PRECISION says "Be precise when necessary". What part of when necessary do you not understand? We can disagree on whether "only" is implied there, but to contend that "be precise when necessary" doesn't say "anything like" "be precise only when necessary" is ridiculous. It certainly doesn't say, "Be as precise as necessary to guarantee every article within a given class of names does not conflict with anything else", which seems to be the guiding notion here. Yes I would happily break this niche "standardisation" in order to preserve the Wikipedia-wide standard of using the most common name of a given article's topic unless there is a conflict. I realize there are other niche classes that break this standard but two wrongs do not make a right. As to the practical problems that this type of preemptive disambiguation causes, please see a detailed explanation here, but in short these are the the five problems of predisambiguation:

1. creating countless unnecessary debates over whether the most common name should be used for a given article, or the predisambiguated name according to some convention for a class of articles to which that article belongs.
2. obscuring naming conflicts
3. makes Wikipedia titles much less reliable for readers and editors to determine the most common names of topics
4. creates "orphans" - articles at predisambiguated titles without appropriate links/references from the undisambiguated name.
5. gives undue priority for claiming primary usage for names by topics that don't belong to a class that is predisambiguated.

Of course no ship can be at Victory despite that being its name, and in such a case precision is necessary, per WP:D. A classic case, in fact. Your example makes my point. It's interesting that you pick that example instead of one of the Russian submarine articles that you've has been recently proposed to be moved. Why Russian submarine K-239 Carp or Russian submarine Carp (K-239)? How is "Russian submarine" part of the name of the topic of this article? Not at all. How is such precision necessary? Not at all. Why not be consistent with Wikipedia naming standards, guidelines and conventions and go with Carp (K-239), Carp K-239 or even K-239? Note how all of these are red - they don't even redirect to the article in question here. These are ship niche examples of problem #4 in the list above, not to mention the lack of a reference to this article at Carp (disambiguation). These types of missing links and redirects are prevalent in niches that use preemptive disambiguation, and one of the reasons I believe the practice should not be followed.

You say that this proposal would cause the renaming of 21,000 articles. I don't know whether it would affect 10% or 90% of the existing ship articles, but suspect it's something in between (because many, like your HMS Victory example, are appropriately disambiguated according to WP:COMMON, WP:D, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION). In any case, it's only a tiny fraction of the total number of Wikipedia articles, and necessary in order to make the articles in this particular niche named consistently with the standards used by the rest of Wikipedia.

I realize that such proposals are unpopular within any particular niche, because editors working within each niche are biased in favor of seeing consistency in naming among the articles in their niche, without regard to the broad conventions. But given enough time, logic and reason can prevail. It did with TV episode names, and there has even been progress made with U.S. city names. Perhaps the editors of the articles in this niche will also begin to see and appreciate the big picture. One can hope, and bring it to their attention just in case. That's all I'm doing here. Take care. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, Born2cycle, it was I, not Benea, that proposed the submarine renaming. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies to both of you! Thank you for correcting me. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An hour ago I started reading Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Proposal_to_reduce_naming_conflicts_-_avoid_preemptive_disambiguation as per the above suggestion from Born2cycle. After reading all the pro and con arguments, ultimately I have to agree with Pmanderson who said "I continue to oppose this; Serge does not see the advantage of predictable names, but he is almost alone in this inability." --Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kralizec!, you've once again said exactly what I would say. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, when reason and logic fails you, you resort to derision and ad hominem attack? Never mind the reply I provided to the above? Very sad for Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and counter-proposal for moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles

The proposal to rename some Russian and Soviet submarine articles (that inspired the above discussion) and a counter-proposal with alternative naming suggestions could both benefit from more opinions from all interested editors. The original proposal and the suggested alternative are both found here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ships with several names where no incarnation is clearly more notable than the others

There appears to be an unspoken concensus that if a ship has had a career under several names but no incarnation is clearly more notable than the others (such as MS Albatros), the article should be named after the current incarnation if the ship is still in service, or after the original name if the ship has been scrapped. If this is indeed the concensus, this should probably be added to the guidelines. If not, this should be discussed and a concensus reached. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea.

• It means that articles automatically change name if the ship is scrapped.
• In the case of which is the most notable name it is often very hard to make any decision.

One horror that occurs to me is that some ships may have longer and more important lives after being hulked - under this rule some members would argue that the ship article should be named after its name as a hulk. I think preference should be given to the name used by the ship when it was a sea-going fighting ship (even if it never went to sea) to its name as a passenger ship or as a survey vessel, and preference to its name as a sea-going ship to its name as a hulk. See Talk:HMS Prince of Wales (1860).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) To my absolute horror someone has done this - I have reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"sea-going fighting ship (even if it never went to sea)" is a contradiction in terms, surely? To my mind your reversion on Prince of Wales/Britannia makes absolutely no sense. "Horror" isn't a good enough excuse. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Toddy1, I'm not sure if we're understanding each other correctly here. I'm not advocating any change to the current rule of "an article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name". What I am saying only applies to cases where there is no clear-cut case of a "best-known name" (such as with RMS Empress of Japan (1930)), where IMHO the clearest way would be to refer to the ship under the original name. This would also be in keeping with the listing systems used by various ship directories such as the Fakta om Fartyg website and William H. Miller's The Pictorial Encyclopedia of Ocean Liners and Cruise Ships. This is already what is routinely done, at least with commercially operated vessels. As such I feel it would be prudent to make this de facto rule official.

Similarly at the moment there appears to be an unspoken concensus that an article on a (commercially operated) ship should be kept under her current name (except in cases where a previous incarnation is clearly more notable). Again, this is already routinely done, and as such it should probably be listed on this page as an official rule.

Of course, if people feel either of the above practices should be changed, I'm all for discussing it (although I have to point out that changing either one would lead to the need of moving hundreds of articles). However, if we take both as established rules, then it logically follows that once a ship is scrapped or otherwise destroyed and no incarnation of the ship was clearly more notable than the others the article should be moved back under the original name. (Alternatively all articles on ships no longer in service should be moved under their last known names—I sincerely hope no-one's advocating this). Cases where a ship has enjoyed a notable career after being taken out of service would still be covered by the existing rule about the best-known name.

To clarify, here's what I think the naming conventions should read on this:

• An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name(s).

• In cases where a ship is in active service and no name is clearly more notable than any other, the article should be named after the ship's current name.

• In cases where the ship is no longer in service and no name is clearly more notable than any other, the article should be named after the ship's original name. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a minefield. Take a look at the various Empire ships that had a suffix beginning with A. All were merchant ships. Some were commissioned into the Royal Navy, others impressed into service with the Kriegsmarine. Some were captured at sea, others in port, yet others were obtained from the USA under lend-lease. It's difficult to have a set of hard and fast rules here. Mjroots (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past several days, I have tried wrapping my brain around this several times. Ultimately I have to agree with Mjroots that any "one size fits all" solution is not going to work 100% of the time. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it would not work 100% of the time, it would save a lot of trouble to have some kind of general guideline like this IMO. Perhaps the wording etc could be modified to give it a more guideline-like feel? — Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

common error

I came here looking for discussion on a common error and decided to make a short seperate head on it.

While keeping notes on WWII topics, I found myself years ago prefixing Japanese ship names with IJN and German ship names with DKM to match the model United States shipnames prefixed with USS and British shipnames prefixed with HMS. When I was told that was wrong, it took a little reflection to realise why. First, USS is "United States Ship" and HMS is "His/Her Majesty's Ship" and are used by the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy themselves as prefix to the names of their ships. IJN and DKM were not used by the German or Japaneses Navies as prefix to ship name by either navy. IJN is Imperial Japanese Navy and DKM is Deutsches Kriegsmarine: the names of the navies. Using IJN Yamato or DKM Bismarck clunks as badly as using USN Iowa or RN Nelson. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Move "Referring to ships" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines?

It seems to me that the "Referring to ships" section might fit more naturally in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehmm where us this "referring to ships" section you speak of? --Brad (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, the Referring to ships section of the guideline. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If true then there are errors in the guideline. I seem to recall several conversations where it was determined that placing "The" before a ship name was not recommended. Placing "the" before a ship name is the same as saying The Kralizec!, The Haus and The Brad. --Brad (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You say that as if people do not speak that way, The Brad. Personally I like my "the" pronounced like "thee" for The Kralizec!, but maybe that is because I am from the same states as The Ohio State University. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the topic comes up from time to time, for example, here, and here. In any case, I think it makes sense for what we have to be at MOS:SHIP. Cheers. The Haus^Talk 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Escort carrier classes proposal

I've started a discussion on the possibility of renaming escort carrier ship class articles and ship class categories at WikiProject Ships. All editors are welcome to comment on the proposal here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ships with several names..., again

Regarding the discussion above, it makes sense to have a default position where a ship has a series of uneventful careers under different names (it seems to apply to merchant ships mostly).
OTOH I agree, using the current name is a bad idea, for the reasons stated.
So what about using the launch name? We know where we are with that, and it would fit with a chronological treatment of the ship's history. What does anyone think? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In the proposal, using the launch/commissioned name is the default position for ships out of serrvice. The "current name" standard only applied to ships in service. I don't think this is a bad idea for a "default" position for ships in which there is no clearly notable name. And this is only inteded to be a guideline, not a policy with which to club the opposition over the head when they disagree, as fun as that can be for the clubber. Of course there will be execptions, but the default is inteneded for cases where no other rules or exceptions apply. Finally, no one objectiong to the suggested default position really had any other option to suggest. This would just mean that every ship name would be detrmined case-by-case, and thus be somewhat haphazard. To me, the default guideline would be most useful for someone trying to create an article, but who really doens't have a sense for what name to use. If it becomes evident that another name is more appropriate, then that should be discussed. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle

Just a comment as somebody not involved with the ships project over at French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) an editor has moved the article to Charles de Gaulle (R91) which has been reverted using this guideline as a reference. It would appear that Charles de Gaulle (R91) would a reasonable non-ambigous (and unique) article name. Perhaps the guideline can be changed for non pre-fixed (dont have USS/HMS etc) ships that have a pennant number. The French aircaft carrier bit in my opinion is not really needed if it has the unique R91 to identify it. I appreciate as somebody non-involved I may have missed something but it seems a reasonable move to me. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around this kerfuffle, as the guideline states pretty unambiguously that "for ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name)." In reviewing the guideline's page history, this appears to have have been the case for over 4.5 years [1]. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt mean it cant be questioned, opinions and editors involved change all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! However as someone who has in the past been pretty actively engaged in discussions on the WP:NC-SHIP and MOS:SHIP guidelines, I did not want any lack of comment on my part to be misinterpreted a la WP:SILENCE. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, it just seemed as an outsider that ships without a prefix and have a pennant number like Charles de Gaulle (R91) is unique and doesnt really need the rest. I understand that a ship with just a name and no prefix would need some type of disambiguation but it is highly unlikely that anybody would use French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) as a search term and as it also seems on some ships to be a point of agument on what [type] should be so it is unlikely to be the Common Name. Has the project a simple explanation for this over describing other than its been agreed years ago. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment/example

In light of the above argument, it seems to me to be obvious that the guidelines are to be read in two parts, one dealing with the prefix/type, nationality, which precedes the ship name and the other with the disambiguation that follows it, i.e:

• Use a prefix or the (Nationality) (type) (Name) format to get HMS xxx, USS xxx, French aircraft carrier xxx, Russian destroyer xxx.
• Use the pennant number or launch date for further disambiguation following the article name.

However given that there is no specific explanation or example of this in the guidelines, some users are trying to argue that the first part no longer applies if there is a pennant number (although not a date of launch) to follow. Could we get consensus to make this an explicit part of the guideline? Something along the lines of:

If further disambiguation is needed or wanted for ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, the launch or acquisition date, or the pennant number if used, can be appended to the article name in parentheses. The standard formatting of (Nationality) (type) (Name) should still be followed in all cases:

• Chilean destroyer Almirante Lynch (1912), not Almirante Lynch (1912)
• Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12), not São Paulo (A12)

I haven't worded that especially well, but I hope you get the idea. Benea (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

While I hesitate to suggest a re-write of a guideline that has -until now- provided clear and easily understandable naming rules for nearly five years, however perhaps the easiest way to eliminate the current source of confusion would be a total re-write that merged large chunks of the "Article title" section with parts of the "Disambiguating ships with the same name" section. Something structured roughly like:

Article title

Military ships

Regardless of their nationality or era of service, all military ships are named using the following standardized convention: [prefix] [ship name] [suffix]

Prefix

The reasons behind and examples for ship prefixes like HMAS, ORP, etc. as well as German battleship, Chilean battery ship, etc.

Ship name

Perhaps something about the ship name always being italicized, or about the name being rendered in the Latinized version of its native name rather than being translated (such as "Triomphant" rather than "Triumphant" or "Asagiri" rather than "Morning Fog")

Suffix

The reasons behind and examples for hull numbers, pennant numbers, and launch years

Thoughts? — Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This won't help much but I strongly agree that military ships need to be identified by nationality in the article title. Whether that identification is by prefix or long hand. If something in the guidelines isn't specific enough then let's make it specific. --Brad (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why the nationality should be mentioned if the name and suffix is unique ? it certainly would not be a common term. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if it were possible to guess what the name of an article would be for a ship. The current system for some ships uses the hull numbers, other ships the pennant numbers, older ships the date, except where someone has decided that a date isn't needed.

Pennant numbers (and sometimes hull numbers) sometimes change during the ship's life. Lots of ships in real life have both pennant numbers and hull numbers - in those cases it is quite hard to find out the hull number.

My own personal opinion is that all the articles should be named HMS Whatever (year of launch/acquisition). And substitute "French/Ruritanian/Swiss ship" if the navy does not have an agreed set of initials such as HMS/USS etc.

Failing that could we have no changes of the rules, because all the obsessive name changes, redirect corrections, etc. are annoying. I know there are people on Wikipedia whose lives depend on ceaseless pointless activity doing first date linking, and then a year later date unlinking. I wish they would discover books, so that they could then do something useful.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the prefix is essential as it helps you know what navy we are talking about. I don't care about uniqueness. I care about not getting hopelessly confused. Many ship names only seem unique; most of them are not.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How often do ship names, especially from different navies, actually coincide? This tendency seems to me far more pronounced in the modern period, when prefixes were actually used. Among early modern ships, it would seem quite uncommon to me, making the modern prefixes not just anachronistic but usually completely superfluous. And as far as I know, prefixes are seldom used by modern naval historians for to describe anything before 18th century.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Navy and Royal Navy both use HMS

I have made a post on the SHIPS wikiproject about both the Royal navy and Swedish navy using the prefix HMS. There does not seem to be a clear policy on the English wiki on how to describe Swedish Ships , the Swedish Navy article says that in English HSwMS is used to avoid confusion with British Royal Naval vessels but that is not what is done on here. My full post can be found here and i would welcome any input anyone could give on this matter. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! IMHO, it should be used what the Swedish Navy recommends (ie: prefix HSwMS). Did anyone already commented about this? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed here. The decision was to use what the Swedish Navy actually uses (HMS) and not its NATO foreign language prefix, in common with the existing conventions. Benea (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ships predating their prefixes

I ran into opposition when I moved HMS Antelope (1546), but that pretty much disregards that this guideline doesn't describe common practice. What is suggested here is that ships that predate modern navies should still use the prefixes applied by organizations that were developed much later, which I find a bit over-bearing. It's also quite clearly not in tune with how naming is actually done. See Peter Pomegranate, Henry Grace à Dieu. If we're to take this too literally, we should also start including medieval ships and those of other early modern European navies, for example Vasa (ship), Kronan (ship), Batavia (ship), Michael (ship), Grace Dieu (ship), Golden Hind, Adler von Lübeck.

Backdating prefixes for European navies is quite anachronistic and historically misleading. For a view on why the Royal Navy shouldn't be backdated beyond the 17th century, see for example Nicholas Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea.

The need for a disambiguation prefix when it comes to ships that predate the modern naval organizations is usually minimal. If there's even a need for a disambiguation, the year will in most cases do fine especially for the examples from before the 17th century. Applying "XXX ship" or "HMS/USS/whatever" slavishly would serve no useful purpose. In my view, the idea of applying modern prefixes where they're not relevant is a breech of neutrality. Maybe not a particularly heinous one, still one that encourages a rather particular historical view skewed towards the modern period. While HMS Sovereign of the Seas might or might not be historically accurate, and isn't entirely unreasonable, applying the same naming to the Mary Rose would be just plain silly.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You've mentioned two examples of RN warships of the sixteenth century (Peter Pomegranate, Henry Grace à Dieu), and could also have added Mary Rose. The HMS prefix comes in in the late seventeenth century, so all ships prior to about the 1780s were also not contemporaneously referred to with the HMS prefix. We have a more pressing issue then if we're going along the route of removing the practice of backdating prefixes, as this catches far more than the medieval ships. Most RN ships of the period currently use the HMS prefix in the title (Category:16th-century ships). Mary Rose and Henry Grace à Dieu I've no problem with in their current form, since both vessels are far better known under their non-prefixed names, Peter Pomegranate I'm less sure about. A discussion should however be had here about whether the guideline needs changing, rather than starting to move individual ships, like Antelope, piecemeal. Benea (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—the practice of adding a prefix to a ship that didn't use one is a bit ridiculous. (Another example: the early American Enterprises.) TheFeds 18:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The regulations on United States Ship are not exactly clear. It's difficult to determine whether Roosevelt's order was to be applied retroactively or not. If we do decide to remove the retroactive prefixing of all ships I think it would be best to not have a mass renaming campaign. I believe that the prefixing of ships for WP articles was to ensure the nationality of the ship was apparent by the title. Otherwise, looking at Mary Rose leaves no clue. --Brad (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is nationality so important to have in the title of an article? Unless it's actually required for disambiguation, it should be something you find out in the article itself.

I would also like to point out that it's somewhat problematic to speak of a Royal Navy in the 16th century. There's a royal navy of the early modern English state and it's definitely the predecessor of the modern Royal Navy, but that doesn't mean it can be equated with the modern organization This is especially true if we're concerned with establishing the correct "nationality" of a ship. The exact same logic should easily apply to all other navies with pre-modern predecessors.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case of HMS Sovereign of the Seas, the caption clearly describes the ship as "His Majesty's royal ship", so HMS isn't too far a stretch for a title. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions aren't the same as actual names, though. In that case it literally means "the ship belonging to the king". The formulaic prefix is of course based on those kinds of captions, but didn't come standard until later. In the case of the Sovereign of the Seas I think the "HMS" is a perfectly acceptable disambiguation title, but I don't think it's appropriate to consider it a standard part of the name.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue, but on the subject of ship naming conventions generally, something that's been bothering me for a while is the use of generic disambiguation names like (ship) or (steamboat) or whatever. It seems to me that the launch or build date should be more than adequate as a disambiguator, I find it quite annoying to go into a category and find numerous disambiguators like "ship" and "steamboat" which are totally uninformative when I already know I'm in a ship or steamboat category. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguations should be reasonably obvious to everyone, though, not just those with a maritime interest. I don't know if you had anything else in mind, but Vasa (ship) seems to me to be more informative than Vasa (1628). And, yes, there have been other warships of that name, though none here at English Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think one has to take into account where people are likely to encounter the link. AFAIK, the only page they are likely to encounter it is a disambiguation page, and on such pages, there is an explanation right there explaining what the link article is about. So why bother with Vasa (ship) when the info is right there on the page anyway? Seems to me it's just treating the readership like dummies, and at the same time, it's useless when you encounter it in category pages. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Linkage is intended to be used in articles as well and to be practical, accurate, neutral and unambiguous. If it happens to look slightly odd to experienced editors when we come upon it in categories or dabpages doesn't strike me as being a very important consideration.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly true that the prefix "HMS" only came into regular use in the 18th century, but technically it is applicable back to 1660, when the Royal Navy officially came into being. But I think that there are no problems in conventional usage of the term back to medieval dates other than during the "republican" period of 1649-1660, when quite evidently English warships were NOT "His Majesty's". However, you should be consistent. Having said that "HMS Mary Rose" (with date suffix) is acceptable, clearly the Peter Pomegranate should have equal treatment as "HMS Peter Pomegranate" (with date suffix). Rif Winfield (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need proposal

Looking at this talk page overall, there are a lot of unresolved issues with naming conventions. There are almost constant discussions over using prefixes on a ship that never had one and whether a ship should be named to identify the nationality or not. Of course none of this ever gets resolved simply because no one comes up with a proposal to replace the current conventions. I would like to see something resolved here. I'm no longer convinced that the convention started 5 years ago should stay in place. But this isn't an issue that should be rushed to resolve either. Something along the line of Proposal --> Discussion and changes --> Discussion and changes --> Consensus should be followed. Of course that will require someone to stick with it through to the end. --Brad (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a terribly concrete suggestion, but why use disambiguators at all if they're not actually required? It's supposed to be used when it's actually required to separate the article from other articles, not just to give literally all articles about the same type of things unitary names. The number of coincidences in early modern cases are often quite few, especially for non-English names, and easily handled either by "(ship)" with or without a date, ei "(1512 ship)" or something like it. Adding "HMS", "Danish ship-of-the-line", "Spanish galleon" or whatever doesn't seem to serve anything related to easy linkage. For example, when it comes to languages the rule for quite some time now is to use "language" only when it's actually required. Why not do something similar for ships?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of duplication in ship names, I favor preemptive disambiguation. If we need to disambiguate, it's easier to just have them disambiguated from the start than to have to go back and do it later. Ship names get repeated so often that we're going to need to disambiguate most of them sooner or later anyway. Blackeagle (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That, and ships are almost always named after something else; in 99% of all cases, disambiguation is going to be necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to see some kind of figure for that when it comes to the early modern ships. And even even if 99% or 80% or 70% would need disambiguation, what exactly is the point of forcing the standard on articles that simply don't need it? How exactly is a simple "don't disambiguate unless required"-clause going to wreak havoc on the system as a whole?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that {{round in circles}} was just added to this page. Please note that this doesn't hold true for the early modern cases I've tried to put focus on here. From what I can tell, the archived discussion is almost exclusively preoccupied with modern ships with pennant numbers and whathaveyou. When it comes to anything pre-1800 none of it appears to be venture outside the quite limited realm of British or US ships.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen question

As a card-carrying punctuation dork, I'd like to point out this discussion on hyphenating ship class names. It's not our fault that it's a tough question, people do it different ways in reliable sources. Consider "Project 23 class ships" in Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, which just passed A-class review; if you write "Project 23-class ships", the eye tends to read that as "Project '23-class' ships", until you realize you've made a mistake and you have to go back and re-interpret, which is exactly the thing that good punctuation is supposed to avoid. There was strenuous objection to using two hyphens in the WT:MOS discussion; there was no objection to leaving the hyphen out completely, and there hasn't been in the articles I've copyedited for A-class reviews. Of course, we don't have the same problem in the more usual case where the ship class is just one word; "Iowa-class battleship" and "Iowa class battleship" are both okay, but people will usually want to see consistency in an article at WP:FAC. (Note that article titles of ship classes aren't hyphenated.) Anyone object if I make an edit to bring this guideline in line with this? - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably we should do whatever is grammatically correct. If leaving the hyphen out is correct (or at least as correct as using the hyphen in the adjectival form), then I doubt anyone from WP:SHIP or WP:MILHIST would have any objections. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

There is a discussion on WT:AT, which has turned into a discussion of whether to change the policy on consistency to

• Consistency When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles.

This may have a significant effect on this guideline. Comments are welcome here. (The scope of the section has changed since it was titled.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Copying to WT:SHIPS for further exposure. Haus^Talk 23:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

SS vs. PS

I don't know if we should say anything in the guideline, but I'm leaning towards naming my article on a paddle steamer SS Advance instead of PS Advance. The ship wasn't called either in its day, and although our article on paddle steamers says they're generally given the prefix "PS", I can't find any more recent sources that use "PS". For instance, for the paddle steamer Delta Queen, I get 10.5K ghits on "SS Delta Queen" and 5 hits on "PS Delta Queen" (and none of them persuasive). Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "PS" is very rarely used because steamboats are usually referred to only by name. I don't think Delta Queen is a good example because it is a much higher profile vessel than other steamboats and may have collected the tag "SS" for exceptional reasons.

I've been thinking about this issue for a while and I think steamboats should be disambiguated either by using the prefix "PS" or by adding the date of launch in brackets. I'm not sure which is better but if it's a choice between disambiguating by "PS" or "SS" then in almost all cases "PS" would be the appropriate disambiguator, as steamboats are not steamships and referring to them by the steamship prefix will only create confusion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow whichever way the crowd runs on titles, but it's going to make life easier if we at least follow WP:TITLE, which prohibits using a name that no one else has used, even if it seems like the right name to us. I don't have a position on for instance HMS for pre-HMS ships, for instance, but note that the argument is that many current sources refer to those ships using HMS (rightly or wrongly), not that we think it would make sense. I wasn't able to find a single persuasive source for "PS Delta Queen". - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, Delta Queen is probably an exceptional case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely "SS" doesn't mean "SteamShip", it means "Screw Steamship"? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because paddlewheel steamships are also commonly referred to as "SS". Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics

I haven't been following the polling, but according to this, it has been decided to use italics in article titles for books, films etc. Should we therefore begin using them for ships as well?--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion and poll - which is all news to me and I'm active in a couple of areas it would be relevant to - it's just a question of choosing to display the article title with italics (The mechanics of which are here) Whether to choose to do that would be a style guide thing and institued at Project level. Best bring it up on the WP:Ships main discussion for maximum coverage and as I wouldn't have said it was relevant to naming per se. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll copy it over.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not a guideline, WP:TITLE is policy. If it stays on the policy page for a week or two, it's safest to assume that it's a done deal, so anyone who objects should join the discussion over there. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it from this that we're now supposed to be using italics for ship names in titles? I didn't realise we weren't supposed to, and have been doing it on and off for a while - and nobody's noticed. I guess this means people either don't read the title, or don't read my articles! Big job, though to change them all over - is this Bot work? Shem (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, same with my articles Shem :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Daft idea really but the article name stays the same all they do is frig the display with a template Template:Italic title so it appears as italics. All the links and everything else stays the same it is just the appearance on the screen. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Any idea who is actually doing it? This doesn't seem to be working perfectly. Shem (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've raised it on the main page here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Italics_in_article_titles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We have been doing it our edits (in lists) over at List of current French Navy ships-example:

• La Fayette class - Multi purpose stealth frigate (Frégates type La Fayette)
  • F710 La Fayette

and I notice that it matches style used by other editors (in lists) at List of French Navy ship names-example:

• Achéron

Felix505 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify the present convention

Could someone please clarify the convention we have at the moment? Does the "Disambiguating ships with the same name" section apply only to military ships (it seems to contradict what's written in the section on Civilian ships)? If so, shouldn't it be moved to become a subsection of the "Military ships" section? And if not, shouldn't it be pointed out in the civilian ships section that there's a large section of major relevance further down the page?--Kotniski (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that any of the detailed conventions could apply to civilian ships, so I went bold and moved everything under the heading of "Military ships".

Peter ^Isotalo 09:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks weird

Sorry, I've seen some weird naming conventions in my time, but this one looks the bizarrest yet... These titles that start "Spanish ship..." or "Japanese aircraft carrier..." and so on seem totally out of step with what Wikipedia normally uses as article titles (it would be like using British Prime Minister Tony Blair or American entertainer Madonna). I dare say this has been discussed at length, but is there any interest in changing this to something less idiosyncratic (such as putting the description in brackets after the name of the ship, as is done with practically everything else)?--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind wider input on this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've previously proposed that we ditch any unncessary monikers and prefixes when it comes to pre-modern ships, including HMS and its many variants that weren't actually in use back then and are seldom used to describe them by modern maritime historians. Syracusia, Mary Rose, La Belle (ship), Batavia (ship), Kronan (ship), Michael (ship), Grace Dieu (ship), Fortuyn (ship) are all as exactly short as they have to be, but for some reason we still have examples like French ship Orient despite there being no obvious need for it (name+year would work just as well).

There appears to be no consensus on pre-modern vessels and no real consistency either. I took the liberty of recently moving French ship La Réale to just La Réale, along with two of the articles on the many incarnations of the royal galley. This is a slightly different solution, but it would quite effectively deal with at least some excessively long titles. It hasn't attracted any kind of opposition so far. But when I moved HMS Antelope (1546) to the less anachronistic Antelope (1546 ship) (HMS wasn't used back then and is seldom used by modern naval historians) I was reverted. At the same time Antelope (ship) has used a less complicated title since 2004 without anyone trying to add a superfluous national designation.

I believe it would be much easier if we actually wrote an exception to the ship naming guidelines that apply to pre-modern vessels. And in general, I believe that various shipping projects should try harder to adhere to the general policy for disambiguation stipulated at WP:PRECISION: "[b]e precise but only as precise as is needed", ie don't disambiguate anything unless it's actually necessary.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the guidelines are causing us to use anachronistic prefixes (I didn't know about that), then that's another - perhaps even more serious - reason to change them.--Kotniski (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific guidelines should not be inconsistent with WP:PRECISION (specifically, "only precise as is needed"). I support changing titles and specific guidelines to be consistent with WP:PRECISION and the rest of the WP:TITLE policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been previously discussed here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But without any great amount of light being shed on the matter. Look, is there anyone here who wants to defend the current guidance? Or if not (or even if there is), what are the possibilities as regards what it might be changed to?--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, the guidance on civilian ships looks fine - all we really need to do is to apply the same principles to military ships as well (it's the military ships section that's the source of all of the problems referred to above).--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you be mor specific as to what the problems are - is it problems with ship names or the problems with guidelines clashing? Or a mixture of both. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This may be relevant (from Disambiguation and precision): "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead."
Now to my mind - Japanese cruiser Matsushima is a natural form of English disambiguation from Matsushima class cruiser and the equally natural Matsushima, Miyagi as opposed to Matsushima (ship), Matsushima (cruiser class) and Matsushima (Miyagi prefecture). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe, but that's clearly not the kind of "natural mode of disambiguation" the policy is intended to mean (the same would apply to any article titles needing disambiguation - "American entertainer Madonna", "Polish city of Police" and so on, and that's never what Wikipedia does). We need the article title to look like the name of something, not just a piece of running text. So that's one problem; the other problem mentioned above is that prefixes are being forced into article titles in cases where they go against correct and common usage.--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To save those interested in the above examples looking for them - the disambiguation is Madonna (entertainer) and Police, Poland. That said - you are identifying the two issues as

1) the anachronistic use of eg HMS etc

2) disambiguators before the item name

For 1, the current guidance is "it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix..(examples removed)..This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name (thus Livy, not "Titus Livius. The article should indicate how the ship was known to her contemporaries (if known), by quoting relevant documents."

Can we tackle this issue first? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's something I don't know much about, but I would have thought the solution would be to include in the guideline a sentence saying that you shouldn't backdate the prefixes if doing so is contrary to actual current usage in a particular case. Peter, you raised this, can you comment?--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1) I think we're all aware that it's common practice on Wikipedia to backdate the British HMS (sporadically), but what exactly is this based on? I'm not aware that modern naval historians actually follow this practice nowadays. Which historians regularly refer to any Royal Charles with an HMS? Or the 16th, 17th and early 18th century HMS Antelopes for that matter? And I don't believe anyone is actual trying to get us to use genuine contemporary names, since this would involve some very complicated decisions about older spelling variants. What is more relevant here is a) to avoid applying prefixes that belong to an entirely different era and b) to stop using longer-than-necessary article titles just for the hell of it. That's where the "precise but only as precise as is needed"-policy comes in. My suggestions would be to rephrase the guidelines to exempt any pre-modern ships from either "HMS" or any other anachronistic additions that aren't actually required for disambiguation. If there are several ships, just the year will just about always suffice.

2) I don't care exactly how disambiguators are placed, but I'd like to point out that Cato the Elder/Younger are actually known under these names and Police, Poland is a common way of specifying the city. Using a parenthesis for Madonna isn't exactly something you'd do in a normal text, but it's the universal disambiguator on Wikipedia. The formula of "<nationalit> <ship type> <ship name>" is quite unique and based entirely on the need modern ship types. But even in the mdoern cases, I'm guessing this is entirely unnecessary for diambiguation purposes since very few warships names are used across several different national fleets, and probablhy never for ships built in the same year.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the use of the disambiguator (ship) should only be used where the vessel was a full-rigged ship. Another thing to bear in mind is that the disambiguators in use at the moment work very well with {{HMS}}, {{SS}}, {{RMS}}, {{MV}} etc, all of which are extensively used across Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also {{ship}}. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the "HMS Noname (pennant number)" format is not clear, effective and meets various naming guidelines - are they?GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Peter's concerns, I think that #1 is actually pretty important due to the number of times warship names get reused. A good example is the HMS Warspite disambiguation page, which shows nine ships with the name, dating as far back as the 16th century. Even though the HMS prefix has only been used on Royal Navy ships since 1789, "backdating" the HMS prefix for the first three makes the system a lot more consistent, and much easier to follow. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These are all benefits for editors; I see no benefits for readers from naming articles like this. These names conflict with the naming policy in a number ways, including:

• being more precise than necessary ("only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously"),
• not concise ("shorter titles are often preferred to longer ones"), and
• not natural ("use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article").

I think all these problems would be addressed by adhering to the naming policy, primarily by disambiguating only when necessary, and being only as precise as necessary. I would move the article about ship named name to name (if no conflict), name (ship) (if one ship that conflicts with non-ship use), or name (year) (if there is more than one ship). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

However it fits well with the consistency described in the naming policy: "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the box above." The box of course, links to this guideline.

Additionally your statement "these are all benefits for editors; I see no benefits for readers from naming articles like this" leaves me a little puzzed. Are you really suggesting that readers would benefit from having the HMS Enterprise (1705) article renamed Enterprise (1705) and USS Enterprise (1799) to Enterprise (1799)? While that might appeal to the most basic of readers (and slavishly follow WP:PRECISION), it only hinders everyone else. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we hinder anyone doing anything by ditching an "HMS" where it doesn't belong? Would Enterprise (1705) throw the work of the project in chaos? Would a name like USS Guest for that matter? The argumentation strikes me as obviously circular: people have named tons of articles on warships using a format that is in many cases obviously anachronistic, or excessively long and complicated, which goes against general policy, but we should keep the format because it would be confusing if we didn't. How is the alternative explained by Born2cycle complicated or unwieldy?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Navy refer to the 1705 as "HMS" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of whether any particular vessel is known (in reliable sources) with an HMS-type prefix is one that can be determined on article talk pages. But the guideline shouldn't say anything to imply that such prefixes are to be used in particular cases where they are not used in reliable sources - that would mean presenting misinformation, which is a breach of more than just the article titles policy. The guideline could perhaps express a preference - that in cases where both prefixed and unprefixed forms are in common use, Wikipedia prefers to use the ... form in article titles.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The link provided by GraemeLeggett is especially significant because it shows that even the Royal Navy follows a consistent naming convention in regards to 'backdating' the HMS prefix ... despite the fact that the first Enterprise sunk nearly eighty years before the prefix was implemented. Having predictable names (that is, names following the consistency described in WP:TITLE) is all the more important when you consider there have been 15 Enterprises, a half-dozen Victories, nine Warspites, etc. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suck at British naming conventions, but Kralizec is making sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No organization single-handedly decides the details of its own history, especially not by just checking its webpage. It's one thing for an organization to decide on what it calls its vessels, but it's a completely different thing to back-date the naming changes to ships that didn't exist when the change was made. That makes both HMS Enterprise (1705) and especially HMS Antelope (1546) problematic.

And as far as I can tell the consistency criterium in the title policy that you're referring to is supposed to be balanced against on the four other criteria: "recognizability", "naturaleness", "precision" and "conciseness". It says that consistency is "often preferred", but the way you're invoking it here as though it actually said "should override all of the above".

Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1st break

Getting back to the issue of the "nationality shiptype shipname" format, I must say I've never liked this disambiguation method and arguably it makes sense to use "Bismarck (battleship)" rather than "German battleship Bismarck". Gatoclass (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the Nationality-type-name format seems natural for some of us because it's closest to the way that we write the articles. Hypothetical article snippet: "at that point in the battle, the convoy escort detected the German cruiser Schloss approaching from the north." It only needs the brackets to be a wikified sentence - albeit that "Schloss" is not italicized. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether ship names should be italicized in titles is another question that could be discussed (or was it discussed earlier, when italic titles were being generally considered?) (But assuming we're not currently using italics in titles, I think the guideline should be edited to take out the italics from the example titles, since it makes it look as if we actually do italicize part of those titles.) Back to the format - while this format does indeed conform to what you might quite often get in sentences, the same could be said about anything (not just ships), as I noted above, and this form is so deviant from what Wikipedia's (and any other similar works') titles normally look like, that I don't think it can be considered acceptable. (It's not just that readers are going to be surprised and have trouble deciphering them; they might actually be misled as to what the name of the ship actually is - they might think that e.g. "German cruiser" is actually (a translation of) part of the name, equivalent to HMS etc.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of our readers. I would have thought that any reader would understand that an article titled German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin‎ was about an aircraft carrier named Graff Zeppelin, as distinct from, for example, the air-ship of the same name. Also Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) is about the ship of that name, not the person the ship was named after. Simply using the pennant number after the ship's name alone may not make it at all apparent to a given reader that we are talking about a ship - indeed unless they are familiar with ship numbering nomenclature they would probably not know what to make of the (L61) on its own. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly it would be much better to use "(ship)" as a disambiguator than the number. But it should go after, not before, the name, to correspond to what Wikipedia always does and what readers expect. It isn't in any way unintelligent for a reader to assume (wrongly) that "German aircraft carrier X" is about a ship originally officially called "Deutscher Flugzeugtrager X" or whatever that is in real German.--Kotniski (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the current guideline is that it assumes that all titles should be consistent with the needs of the most complicated and longest article names. Those are in turn dictated almost entirely by the naming practices of English-speaking navies. The above examples illustrate this quite well: rather than Juan Carlos I (ship) and Graf Zeppelin (ship) we have names that are twice as long by adding unnecessary factual details about the article topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I suspect that the non-English speaking navies are the very reason the Nationality type Name format exists. Do you know how many different ships from different countries have been named Independencia? — Kralizec! (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So under any normal scheme, they would be called "Independencia (Spanish cruiser)" etc. - with whatever disambiguation is necessary put after the name of the vessel, just as is done perfectly successfully with civilian ships. The only reason, I presume, that the weird convention was adopted was to achieve some kind of artificial consistency with the English "HMS Foo" type names. But this consistency is fasle and unhelpful, since the "prefixes" we've ended up giving to foreign navies' ships are not prefixes in the real world, as HMS etc. are, and don't even look like, or correspond in meaning to, HMS etc.--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many real-world authors prefer to use made-up prefixes like IJN and CNS. While I was not involved in the initial writing of the guideline, I presume these widely used -but purely artificial- prefixes are the reason the guideline directs us to follow the factual Nationality type Name format. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• These "prefixes" as you describe them are descriptive of the subject of the article. No normal English speaking person is going to think that the words before the name are somehow "part of the official name" as you seem to be saying. I fail to see how anyone who speaks English with any degree of fluency is going to have any problems understanding what the subject of an article with a title in the current format is about. Frankly you seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to try and find problems with the current naming standard when none exists. Maybe it is time to drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well no, there is obviously a problem, even regardless of the fact that readers might be misled - these titles simply look silly. The solution is fairly easy - apply the very sensisble naming standards we have for civilian ships (which are consistent with the naming standards used for nearly all Wikipedia articles) to military ships as well. Seriously, is there any objection to doing that?--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"These "prefixes" as you describe them are descriptive of the subject of the article." - The purpose of the title in Wikipedia articles is to convey the name of the subject, not a description of subject. The introductory sentence and paragraph provides the description. That's why we have Jimmy Carter, not President Jimmy Carter; San Francisco not City of San Francisco; Plum not Plum fruit; etc. Descriptive information is sometimes added, but only when necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. Ship articles should be named consistently with other articles in Wikipedia; in accordance with WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Per #1 at Wikipedia:D#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles, the WP:SHIPS naming policy is perfectly fine. As I noted the last time this came up, just about 100% of ship articles require at least some disambiguation (at least from the thing they were named after, and in many cases from other similarly named ships). German battleship Bismarck is exactly analogous to the Delta rocket example given at WP:D. Note that it states that the parenthetical disambiguator can be added, not "must always be used". Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My position echoes Parsecboy's. Benea (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But what is that position? The question here is not whether this convention complies with the precise wording of some other convention (Delta rocket is no longer the name of the article, incidentally), but whether there is any benefit (other than intertia) in continuing to use this convention. I'm proposing that we apply the same conventions to military ships as we currently do to civilian ships - does anyone see any disadvantage in making that change?--Kotniski (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to make that change. As I said, my position echoes Parsecs, and can be found in further detail in the archives of the page. Benea (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is a reason to make the change - avoiding the confusing titles, and consistency with civilian ship articles and with the style used in virtually all other Wikipedia articles. I'm asking if there are any reasons to retain the existing convention.--Kotniski (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One editor's "reason to make a change" is another editor's "not broken, don't fix it." — Kralizec! (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I to understand no-one actually has any arguments in support of the existing convention? Or against my proposal (which of course is not the only possible solution)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd break

(unindent) Kralizec, those resisting change here seem to be ignoring or sidelining plenty of relevant objections about using disambiguators on all warship articles even when they're obviously relevant only to a small proportion of them. Bringing up one specific example of a common ship (Independencia, one relevant ship article so far) name is a very far-fetched reasoning to extend this practice to all names, no matter how uncommon. I'm extremely skeptical that 100% of ship articles require disambiguators for the purposes of accuracy. The figure might be 80-90%, but that's still very far from every single article. And the articles that require more than "USS/HMS" or "(ship)" are quite likely in the minority.

Btw, "German battleship Bismarck" could just as well be "battleship Bismarck" (or "Bismarck (battleship)"). There's absolutely no need for the "German", and it's likely that there's not a single article that actually needs it if "(year)" would be used as a disambiguator. At the very least, we'd be talking very low numbers. So can someone once more explain why we mark nationality in all (non-English) warship articles?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"We mark nationality in all (non-English) warship articles" simply because nattionality is marked oin the other article. To not do so would be "unfair" to those navies who nations don't use recongnized national identifiers. In an international encyclopedia, nationalism can show itself in strange ways, and it's my hunch that solving this issue was at the root of the current naming convention. It sounds terribly silly, but hyper-nationalism often is, especially in its jealous form. Perhaps that mentality is no longer prevelant, and changing the system would not cause such problems. Perhaps not. Either way, there doesn't appear to be much of a consensus within the project to change the system now. - BilCat (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If that ever was the argument, then I find it incredibly silly - it isn't being "unfair" to anyone to include prefixes where they are used and not to include them where they are not used (if those countries wanted their ships to be prefixed, then presumably they would start prefixing them - so it's those countries' choice not to have prefixes).--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of silliness goes on on WP, much of it accepted as normal, to avoid offending certain nationalities and groops. The bulk of the readership of WP is claimed to be in the US, yet WP goes out of its way to be an "international" encyclopedia, writing many of its articles in variants of English other than that of the bulk of its readership. In some cases, such as on astronomy article, US customary units are forbidden in pratice, even though these article likely attract younger readers in grade and high schools, and may not fully understand the metric system as yet. I'm not arguing against ENGVAR per se, but they way WP trys to avoid offending those from other countries does often go to lengths that might seem silly. Don't discount that reaction. - BilCat (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be completely off topic. And without any previous support anywhere in the guideline or its talkpage archives. How about we drop this here and now?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't mark nationality in all non-English ship articles (see HNLMS Amsterdam (A836), SMS Goeben, HMS Visborg (A265), SS France (1961)). What we do is disambiguate ships without a prefix by nationality and type, because if we don't, it quickly becomes impossible to disambiguate sensibly between the large number of ships of the same name that don't have a prefix (eg Spanish ship America (1736) & French ship America (1788), Spanish ship Tigre (1747) & French ship Tigre (1793) - and there are hundreds more, some with the same year of launch). It's nothing to do with "fairness" or "avoiding offending countries" - which would indeed be silly. This is old ground, which has been debated ad nauseam, and was finally adopted because it worked (unlike the alternatives). Please leave the status quo alone.

Having said that, it's high time we stopped giving HMS prefixes to ships that never wore them - it's unencyclopaedic, unhistorical and plain wrong! Any concern about finding readers finding ships that don't start HMS can easily be fixed with a redirect. Under the current naming rules, HMS Revenge (1577) should really be English ship Revenge (1577), noting that some ships would have carried the HMS prefix later in their extended lives. Shem (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm realy not following the reasoning here. Why is the application of the general rule of "avoid pre-emptive disambiguation" unworkable? At what point do names like Revenge 1577 or Tigre (1747) make the article naming standards of Wikipedia break down?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting mixed up because there are really several questions being discussed simultaneously.

1. One is whether to "backdate" HMS-type prefixes to ships that never had them in their own lifetime. My thoughts on this are that we certainly mustn't do this (for a particular ship) if there aren't sources that do it for that particular ship - that's just original research and against policy and totally wrong. We could (but don't have to) continue to do it for those ships for which sources sometimes do it. I must say that, from the point of view of a reader trying to learn something, I would far rather have the original name reflected in the article title, than a revised name that is sometimes used by modern sources. So I'd be in favour of not backdating at all (unless there are cases where sources always do it, which I somehow doubt).
2. Another is whether to disambiguate more than is strictly necessary. Personally I see no reason to and would prefer not to, although there are some other areas of Wikipedia besides ships where they do that (e.g. kings, American towns), so it's not completely idiosyncratic.
3. Another is where to put the disambiguator. On this I think there's no doubt that the ships guideline needs changing - we never anywhere else put the disambiguating phrase before the name as we do with the prefix-less military ships. This just looks silly and unlike anything else, and is what brought me here in the first place. Even if we desire a title that says that the Bismarck was not just a battleship, but a German one, then the title ought to be "Bismarck (German battleship)", not the peculiar "German battleship Bismarck".

There also seem to be problems with the way ships are disambiguated (these hull numbers don't look a great idea, as they will be meaningless to most readers). But let's maybe discuss the above questions one at a time, as was originally suggested.--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Parsecboy above (although I will note that the Delta rocket example has been removed by you since then), and I still haven't seen a compelling argument as to why our conventions contradict WP:D, nor any reason why the Ships Project needs to follow the dictations of whoever drew up WP:D. NC-SHIP has worked perfectly well for many years, so why don't you drop the stick and let a project that has produced 89 FAs, 57 As, and 269 GAs be? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm inclined to concur with Kotniski and Peter. The current warship disambiguation style is at odds with disambiguation conventions on all other pages, both in the fact that the disambiguator is not in brackets and in that it gives more information than is necessary. I see no reason to add the nationality to a ship title if no other country has a ship with the same name. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I had an issue a few months ago when French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) was moved to Charles de Gaulle (R91) but reverted because it didnt meet this guideline. As Charles de Gaulle (R91) was a unique name the rest was just padding to meet the guideline. Similar arguments about it having been agreed for a long time despite the fact a number of editors outside the project think it is non-standard and just looks wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why Charles de Gaulle (R91) should not be sufficient. That is a good example of what is wrong with the current wikiships convention in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. For example things like Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi are ridiculously ugly, no other nation had or has a carrier named Akagi thus the article should be either under "Aircraft carrier Akagi" or "Akagi (aircraft carrier)". The real problem on wikipedia is there are a lot of people who love to invent all sort of rules and guidelines which are totally at odds with common sense. Just an example: recently I discovered that the wikipedia article about the ancient capital of Japan, the city called Nara, is under an abomination of a name: Nara, Nara. It almost sounds like a bad joke, but seems that a couple of wikipedians typing behind their comps invented some guidelines and now try to convince them that Nara, Nara is well, dumb. Anyway to return to ships it goes without saying that articles should be under ship name + the minimum necessary to disambiguate.  Dr. Loosmark  20:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I can live with the proposed change to get rid of the non-prefix disambiguators, if it comes to a consensus, but can we please roll into what is turning into a massive change, at least a consideration to incorporate:

• The removal of HMS for pre-Restoration English warships
• The use of year as a disambiguator for non-US ships instead of pennant number (how many readers ever searched for HMS Belfast (C35)?)

Put me down as "on-the-fence" for changes to the rest of the naming convention - ow, these splinters really hurt! Shem (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that WP:TITLE, which is policy, doesn't quite extend to requiring a parenthetical disambiguation after the commonly used title. It's true that WP:D supports that, but WP:D is a guideline, and we have a fairly strong precedent for ship names, and fairly strong precedent is just as strong a reason to do something as a guideline is. One way to avoid bloodshed would be to argue the point at WT:TITLE ... since TITLE is policy, if TITLE makes it clear one way or the other, that would settle the question (for me, and for most). OTOH, if we try to get this into TITLE and it fails on the grounds that that shouldn't be policy, that would support Ed's position. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: year as a disambiguator instead of pennant number - can I suggest that few people search for "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)" either. Pennants fulfil similar job to hull classification and are painted in large letters on the sides of ships.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pennant numbers are part of a ship's ID and I see no reason to remove them. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gateclass; GraemeLeggett is saying (I believe) that pennant numbers and hull numbers should go, to be replaced by year of launch as a suitable disambiguator. Pennant numbers are not part of a Royal Navy ship's identity - they are merely a convenient means of identifying a ship within visual range. It's insane to suggest a reader searches for HMS Foo (X999) instead of HMS Foo. I've been working on these sort of articles for years, and I know I never do - because I have no idea what pennant number I'm looking for. Shem (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was suggesting they both stay as natural disambiguators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, sorry - but perhaps you can see why I was confused. Shem (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the purpose of the disambigation is to separate articles not necessarily as a search term. If you were wanting to search for Belfast on here you might not use her pennant, but her time of service (Second World War) or class (cruiser or "Town") as much as her launch date, or commissioning date or her conversion to museum. Belfast is probably a poor example as she's been the only HMS Belfast GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think disambiguators ought to be chosen so as to make the subject of the article recognizable to as many as possible of the people who might stand a chance of recognizing it. I would have thought year of launch would be more recognizable than hull or pennant number - the latter is only going to be known to specialists, while year of launch is going to be known (at least approximately, which is good enough) by many more of the audience.--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Example - next year is the anniversary of the sinking of the Ark Royal, without checking what year was she launched? ship indices such as HMS Ark Royal take the load when searching for warships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Well this is what I mean, few people will know exactly what year she was launched, but most people will recognize that "HMS Ark Royal (1937)" is likely to refer to the WWII ship. Meanwhile the disambiguator in the current title, "HMS Ark Royal (91)", will be meaningless to all but a few shipping boffs.--Kotniski (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And there's also the fact that the first two Ark Royals are disambiguated by year anyway, so we would gain much more consistency by doing them all by year.--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one would be delighted to see the back of pennant numbers, with disambiguation by year of launch; I'm completely with Kotniski on this one. Try searching for "HMS Daring" without any knowledge of pennant numbers, and see how long it takes to find the 2006 ship! Shem (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Total opposition

After watching this go on for over a week it's time to realize that any one particular convention will never be perfect. If a new convention is adopted as being suggested I estimate that 15,000+ articles will have to be moved to new titles. After that, just as sure as the sun rises someone else will come along and claim the naming convention makes no sense and should be changed. Enough of this silliness! The ships project has plenty of other far more important issues they should be dealing with than semi-annually going around in circles on this issue. It's as worn out as the "she vs it" argument. Brad (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see the contradiction in this? If we finally did make the conventions right (and I don't think anyone can seriously claim they're right at the moment) then we wouldn't have to keep discussing them, as people would be satisfied with them. There are many naming conventions on Wikipedia - the only ones that keep getting discussed are the ones that people can see have serious problems. We should be fixing the problems, not pretending they don't exist. And however many articles are involved, the number is only going to be increasing, so the sooner we get this right, the fewer moves will have to be made. --Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if it keeps coming up, there's probably a good reason for that. As for change - that's the nature of Wikipedia. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason things like this keep coming up says more about the attitudes of those who keep bringing it up than it does about the merit for the proposed change. The consensus has been established here for a long time, there have not been any convincing arguments put up for a change. Basically the argument against the current format of "country X ship xxxxx" boils down to some people saying "I don't like it". The rest is largely window dressing. IMO, it is well past time for those arguing against the existing consensus to drop the stick. Instead of arguing about this previously discussed to death non-issue, lets get on with building the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a non-issue, why are you discussing it? And there certainly isn't any consensus for the existing guideline - the purpose of this discussion is to try to reach some consensus. And the arguments are much more than "I don't like it" - please read them and try to respond constructively.--Kotniski (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this will be only my fourth post on this subject here as I don't feel constrained to respond to every little thing said. How many posts have you made? At least 15 by my quick count. I think you need to calm down and back off a bit and get some perspective. You do not own the ship namng convention. Whether you recognise it or not, your arguments do boil down to "I don't like it". You even titled the initial section on this subject here "Looks weird". Maybe instead of arguing about the title of thousands of existing articles about ships, you might be better employed doing some research and writing a few, or at least actually helping improve the content of some of the existing articles. I am sure if you look on the ships project page you will find plenty that needs doing. This argument about titles does not need doing, however, the reason why I continue to stick my oar in from time to time is so that zealots so not get to decide how everything gets done. You do not get to "win" by weight of words. What really matters is the strength of the arguments. You may not recognise it, but the strength of your argument is absent. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Steady there, tiger! Whether you agree with Kotniski or not (and I'm open to both arguments), he does have a cogent argument, and he clearly feels it's important. Accusing him of a lack of perspective, and of failing to improve the encyclopaedia, just won't do. Discussion here, ad infinitum if necessary, but let's keep it civil. Back to the pros & cons of the case, please. Shem (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have observed what seems to be an inverse correlation between how much a specific guideline follows the basic principles at WP:TITLE (including preference for short titles and using only as much precision as is necessary) and how controversial the naming of the relevant articles are. That is, the more "out of line" a specific naming convention is, the more controversy there appears to be. In this case there is precious little precedent for making article titles descriptive (the vast, vast majority of WP article titles convey only the name of the topic, not a description of it, except when necessary for disambiguation purposes).

Necessary exceptions to the basic principles are one thing and generally noncontroversial, but unnecessarily adding descriptive information in article titles is a sure recipe for endless controversy. The notion shared by Brad above that bringing these article titles more in line with basic naming principles will only dissatisfy others and lead to more efforts to change again is baseless, as far as I can tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think much of the concern comes from the fact that we currently have a stable working naming system, and that - especially given the amount of renaming required (worst case?) if we change the guideline - should it change back later the sizeable workload is doubled. Any mass renaming would eat into the time that those involved have for working on article editing which is where the meat of wikipedia's content lies - not in the article name but in the space below it. Perhaps it's time to move onto to examining the principles/specifics of alternate naming guideline and see where we are in agreement? We can also assess the true workload in the renaming (I'm thinking reworking affected templates, as well as the actual moves and sorting out redirects) GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The renaming effort to not predisambiguate is necessary to uncover many problems caused by predisambiguation. The tendency with predisambiguation is to create articles at the predisambiguated name and to overlook making sure the name (and names) of the topic is (are) properly managed in dab pages and redirects. The renaming process will force checking through all those cases, as is automatically the case for the vast majority of articles because they are not predisambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Something of a side issue, but I uncovered an example today totally by chance: French ship Mercure (1783) exists, but nothing at French ship Mercure, nor any other article on a ship of this name. (Redirect? Move the article? You decide.) Nor is there any mention of the ship at the Mercure dab page. Someone typing in "Mercure" isn't going to find this article.--Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a side issue at all; it's exactly what I'm talking about. You will see countless examples of this within any category of names that are predisambiguated. See the clarification I just posted below, which I wrote before I saw this comment from you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I contend that because ship names are predisambiguated, there are sure to be countless examples of the following problems:

1. No entry for the ship name itself (should be a redirect by current convention, location of article per WP:TITLE).
2. No entry for a reasonable alternative name for the ship.
3. The article at the ship name, which is about some other topic, has no hat note link to the article about the ship (or should be moved to make room for a dab page at that title, including a link to the ship)..
4. The article at a reasonable alternative title for the ship, which is about some other topic, has no hat note link to the article about the ship (or should be moved to make room for a dab page at that title, including a link to the ship).
5. The dab page at the ship name has no entry/link for the ship.
6. The dab page at a reasonable alternative title for the ship name has no entry/link for the ship.

If we adopt disambiguate only when necessary, then we will be forced to go through the following process for each article:

1. Identify the name of the ship (the ideal title for the article) and any reasonable alternative titles.
2. For each name identified, review what is currently at that name.
3. If nothing is currently at the name and the name is the ideal title or the best alternative, move this article there; otherwise make it a redirect.

   If a redirect to the ship is there and it's the ideal title (or best alternative), move the article there.

   If another article is there verify it is the primary topic for that name (if not, make it a dab page) and has a proper hatnote-link to the ship article.

   If a dab page is there add an entry for the ship if it is not there already.

It's a lot of work, but most of it is necessary work that should have been done already even without renaming. Most of what the renaming process will do is cause necessary work that has been ignored due to predisambiguation to be finally done. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with that statement "there are sure to be countless examples", do you have any examples of this or some evidence for the scope of the problem. I estimate about 4,000 entries in Category:Set indices on ships which are disambiguation pages for ships with the same name, which suggests this Project is reasonably on top of disambiguation of ship names at least.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ye gads. In a nutshell, I'll say that the only part of all the proposed changes I agree with is dropping "HMS" prefixes from ships that never had them. As for the rest...well, I'd think that a name (ship) disambig for ships for which other possible disambigs exist (name (P007), for instance) would look distinctly unprofessional and amateurish. Overall, I strongly support not fixing what isn't broken here. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Graeme, above I identified and numbered six potential problems. You suggested looking at Category:Set indices on ships. Fine. Starting arbitrarily with J, here are the results. For each I say ok if I find nothing wrong, or the problem number from my list of 6 above if there is a problem. As you can see, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

1. USS Jacamar - #3 No hat link to this page or to Jacamar (disambiguation) in article at Jacamar. #2 - no entry for Jacamar (ship).
2. USS Jack - #5 - No entry for the ship at Jack dab page. #2 - no entry for Jack (ship). If you're looking for the ship that grandpa was on, named Jack, good luck!
3. HMS Jackal - Jackal has a hat link to the dab page at Jackal (disambiguation), and the dab page has an entry for ship there, but... #2 - no entry for Jackal (ship).
4. USS Jackdaw - #6 - There is a hatlink to Jackdaw (disambiguation) at Jackdaw, but Jackdaw (disambiguation) has no entry for the ship. #2 - no entry for Jackdaw (ship).
5. USS Jacob Jones - #3; #6 - no hatlink to the ship or dab page at Jacob Jones; no entry for the ship at Jones, nor at Jacob nor Jacob (disambiguation). #2 - no entry for Jacob Jones (ship).

This shows at least one problem from my list of six potential problems with each of the first five that I looked at from your category list, or 100%. Even if you ignore the #2 problems (no entry for shipname (ship), it's still 4/5 with problems, or 80%. If that doesn't substantiate my claim that "there are sure to be countless examples of the [six listed] problems" for you, I imagine nothing will.

By the way, this is very typical of any articles for which predisambiguation is the norm, and why I was able to predict this with such confidence. The typical response is, "well, all we have to do is go through all of them and fix the missing links/entries, etc.", but the problem is inherent to predisambiguation. That is, when the convention is to disambiguate only when necessary, the onus is placed automatically on anyone creating or moving an article to make sure it's at it's ideal name if it can be, which means they will automatically first try Jacamar, Jack and all the next-best alternatives, and so will notice that there is already something there (an article or dab page) when there is, and are very likely to handle it properly. It's natural. But with predisambiguation the tendency is to go straight to the predisambiguated name, e.g., USS Jack, and not even give consideration to what's going on with the ideal name Jack or Jack (ship). I've seen this inherent problem of predisambiguation manifested many, many times before, with predabbed U.S. city names, predabbed plant names, predabbed TV series names, predabbed names of royalty, etc., and now I see it again. No surprise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying your methodology. A quick test on your No. 2 issue - a search, eg for "Jacamar ship", does deliver an article in each case. There is no hatnote for Jacob Jones but the three ships named after him are mentioned on the page. However while a fair test of your issues, its only one sample, how do the tests perform at other parts of the alphabet - if the problem is endemic your tests should replicate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @B2C: Are you actually suggesting that the pre-disambiguation of articles by using prefixes is a bad thing? Because that's what I got from this (correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears your argument is "whoever wrote USS Jacamar should have placed the article at Jacamar first, providing there wasn't an article there already"). I don't think anyone here would agree with that line of reasoning. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a separate question, whether the ship is typically written in reliable sources with or without the prefix ... we've looked at this a few times, and it usually shows up with USS, although of course that's not true for the ships of some other navies. Btw, you mention "predabbed TV series names" Born ... wasn't there an Arbcom case on that? How did that turn out? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's say I'm sold on the idea; how do we go about making the changes to the titles of so many articles (and the links to them, including many, many double-redirects)? Shem (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Parsecboy, I'm saying predisambiguation is bad, evil. It encourages sloppy work. Yes, whoever created USS Jacamar should have checked Jacamar first, and they would have if the convention was not to predisambiguate. I think many here would disagree with this, because they favor the predisambiguated names. Yes, it makes it easier, and that's the problem.

Graeme, how about you try to find a few good ones in a row in your list (without fixing anything), and then letting me know and I'll double-check? What's the most in-a-row problem-free you thank you can find? 2? 4? 10? In any case, my point will be made. I suppose it's possible that the first five at J (which I truly arbitrarily picked) are a fluke, but I doubt it.

Shem, I think we need a definitive list, and then start working on it. I suppose we should put chunks of 20 or more at a time in WP:RM request. Not sure. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That predisambiguation is "bad, evil" is your opinion, and not necessarily that of other editors. There is also nothing in WP:TITLE or WP:D that I could find that states pre-disambiguation is a bad thing. I don't think people would disagree with you because they favor predisambiguated names, but because it's utter nonsense to dispense with widely known prefixes like USS, HMS, SMS, etc. Ships that carried prefixes are always listed with them - it would be plain wrong for us to not use them, and even worse to use them selectively. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think most editors realize and appreciate the practical problems that predisambiguation creates. I predicted that there would be countless problems with ship names due to predisambiguation, was challenged, and proved that I was right by arbitrarily picking five names and finding the predicted problems in at least 4 of the 5.

WP:TITLE does not explicitly say anything against predabbing, but it's implied in the fundamental principles, like conciseness (shorter titles are preferred), and titles should only be as precise as necessary. If the most common name for a ship is USS whatever, then that should be its title (if possible), and is not predabbing. That's a separate issue. But there should still be a link from the basic name of the ship to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Practical problems caused by predisambiguation? Are you really suggesting that Wikipedia users are suffering a disservice because ship articles have consistent and predictable names? If so, how can you stand to see Acer saccharum, rather than sugar maple? Regardless of your opinions on bad and evil predisambiguation that encourages sloppy work, the experts at WP:PLANT obviously used it when they named the article Quercus rubra instead of northern red oak, much like members at WP:SHIPS used predictable, consistent naming standards when titling the HMS Warspite (03) article. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the conventions adopted at WP:PLANTS are terrible as exemplified by your examples (this is an English, not Latin, encyclopedia). But at least they're going by an existing taxonomy, not inventing their own predisambiguated terms like is being done at WP:SHIPS. It's one thing to use invented terms comprised of descriptive characteristics of the topic when necessary to disambiguate; it's quite another to do that when disambiguation, the greater precision and length-of-title, is not required. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of text here for people to get through when they first arrive at this debate. Its hard to tell what exactly is being proposed? Could someone briefly sum up please? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See the first paragraph at #Looks_weird. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is the only thing being proposed should change then i agree. "Spanish ship..." / "Japanese aircraft carrier" look awful in article titles. Should always be prefix ship name (pennant number), If theres no number, go with the year and if theres no prefix just stick with name and year. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet I would argue that the pennant number is the worst possible disambiguator, since it is impenetrable to the uninitiated reader of an encyclopaedia - what's wrong with just using the year of launch for every ship? Shem (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well on a disam page it should clearly state the years in service or when it started and the fact it is still in service. so its not hard for a reader to find the ship they are looking for . If there is no disam issue then there should be a redirect to the ship anyway. It would seem very strange to me when so many navies have the pennant number or Hull Classification for us to use years instead, most people may not know the pennant number but im sure most people wont know the specific year either. People come to an encyclopaedia to be educated, the pennant number/hull classification is an important fact about a ship. Us using the numbers in the article title is helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) I'm not convinced year is a good disambiguator as some think - I can see value in changing disambiguation in some cases eg German cruiser Lützow (Hipper class) becomes Lützow (Hipper class cruiser) to separate her from Lützow (Deutschland class cruiser) (a redirect for what is currently at German pocket battleship Deutschland). That could equally be applied to some of the HMS's.
In writing about naval matters I would expect Hood to be identified as distinct from the others of the same name by referring to her as the battlecruiser Hood or by her pennant - though it may be that she is a bad example as she is much more famous than the others. Perhaps Ark Royal is the better example where you have the "through-deck cruiser" (R07), the Second World War one (91) and the Cold war era one (R09) GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are actually four Ark Royal carriers, you forgot HMS Ark Royal (R07). Parsecboy (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I've mucked up my linking that should have been one of the others above. I'll correct it and add the pennants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The German cruiser Lützow (Hipper class) does not appear to be correctly named as per this guideline; otherwise it would be German cruiser Lützow (1939). To the best of my knowledge, we never put a ship's class in the article's title. It may be worth noting that the German version of the article is named de:Lützow (1939). — Kralizec! (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the article titles aren't there to educate the reader! I would suggest that the pennant number of a ship is far less important than you're suggesting - less important, for example, then its IMO number or international callsign, even for a warship. In fact its only importance is for visual recognition. You're arguing that the years of service are already on the article page - but so is the pennant number. What we're doing at the moment is disambiguating ships by year, but making an exception for those more modern ships that have pennant numbers. And furthermore, we use pennant numbers even though they often changed - for example HMS Icarus (D03) became I03 (I think), but you wouldn't know it from the article (note: changes of pennant number are so numerous that I wouldn't be surprised if it represented over 50% of articles using them for disambiguation). And what does HMS Ark Royal (91) mean to anyone, let alone the initiated? Few of my historical works (although this isn't really my period) even mention pennant numbers, let alone use them to distinguish between ships. My point is: if we're going to change the way we name ships (the arguments I've seen here are pretty convincing) then we should take the opportunity to disambiguate modern warships properly at the same time. Shem (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, disambiguation serves one purpose - to differentiate articles that would otherwise have the same title. To that end the disambiguator needs to serve the user in finding the article. To that end "Bismarck (battleship)" serves to separate from SS Bismarck which could claim "Bismarck (ship)". To that end HMS Norfolk (78) could be "HMS Norfolk (cruiser)", HMS Norfolk (D21) - "HMS Norfolk (destroyer)", and HMS Norfolk (F230) - "HMS Norfolk (frigate)" which is both accurate and descriptive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear your point, but there are plenty of examples where that would get out of hand - for example, HMS Daring (D32), HMS Daring (D05), HMS Daring (H16) & HMS Daring (1893) would be something like HMS Daring (Daring-class destroyer 2006), HMS Daring (Daring-class destroyer 1944), HMS Daring (D-class destroyer) and HMS Daring (torpedo boat destroyer). HMS Daring (2006), HMS Daring (1949), HMS Daring (1932) & HMS Daring (1893) at least have the advantages of being simple and easy to find, since almost every search will have some idea of period. Shem (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If changes of pennant number are "numerous", then using them in page titles would make lots of extra needless work. If not, nevermind :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(for the record) I think Daring (D32) would be HMS Daring (Type 45 destroyer).

Id certainly prefer HMS Daring (Type 45 destroyer) than HMS Daring (2006), but i still think Pennant numbers / hull classifications are fine if available. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with things as they are - it was a more of side comment that under that way of doing things, Type 45 as a disambiguator fits with the article on the ship class she is one of. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example of how numerous pennant number changes actually are, consider the following quote from Pennant number:

“ The flag superior for whole ship classes has often been changed while the numbers stayed the same. For example, in 1940, the Royal Navy swapped the letters "I" and "D" around (e.g. D18 became I18 and I18 became D18) and in 1948, "K", "L" and "U" all became "F", where there was a conflict, a 2 was added to the front of the pennant number ”

In addition, all the Type 15 frigates and Type 16 frigates were conversions of destroyers, so these all changed to "F" numbers. The list goes on & on - I'm barely scraping the surface in this quick post.

Oh, and yes, Daring (D32) would be HMS Daring (Type 45 destroyer), rather than HMS Daring (Daring-class destroyer 2006), but isn't HMS Daring (2006) so much simpler? HMS Norfolk (frigate) would indeed work, but when you look at other Type 23 frigates, HMS Portland (frigate) doesn't, because HMS Portland (1822) was also a frigate. When you look at Royal Navy names from the 18th & 19th centuries, they're filled with names used time & time again for ships of the same type. You only have to look at the Cherokee class brig-sloop in which something like 18 of the names were re-used within the class (they sank faster than they were built!). How do you disambiguate that, except by year of launch? Shem (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion has gotten quite long, I think it's about time we try to summarize it. I've made an attempt at what I believe are at least three relevant suggestions so far. It's not an attempt to try forcing a change and under no circumstances a way to start a vote or even a poll. It's merely an initial attempt of explaining what kind of changes that have been discussed.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes

This is a summary of suggested changed intended to reflect the wishes of those who have suggested that changes be made to this naming convention. Please feel free to edit them for neutrality and accuracy according to the discussion above.

• Do not use predisambiguations: The first for a ship article name should be the name of the ship without any disambiguators per the common pattern Wikipedia (Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad rather than Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad (1769)). If the ship's name is not unique nor a primary meaning, disambiguators should be added, but only to the extent that they are actually needed to create a unique article name (Admiral Kuznetsov (carrier) rather than Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov).
• Do not backdate prefixes: HMS and similar ship prefixes should not be applied to ships that never used it in their own time. It should only be backdated where it is a common name in literature (Antelope (1546) rather than HMS Antelope (1546))
• Year of launch is preferable to pennant numbers: Year of launch is more recognizable than pennant numbers (HMS Ark Royal (1937) rather than HMS Ark Royal (91)). Pennants should only be used as a secondary disambiguation.

Question: we're not using "pennant number" as an umbrella term to include hull classification symbols are we? "USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)" and "USS Abraham Lincoln (SSBN-602)" seem much clearer and more informative than "USS Abraham Lincoln (1988)" "USS Abraham Lincoln (1960)".User:Haus (talk)

Answer: we haven't talked about it, and it's not currently on the table. Hull class symbols are more usually considered part of the name of a US Ship. Shem (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First point. Time we did discuss whether hull classification is valid, to clear the matter up.

Second point - surely Admiral Kuznetsov (aircraft carrier) - carrier could be seaplane carrier for all we know.

Third point - is year or pennant disambiguation secondary to vessel type disambiguation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought that the hull classifications were pretty stable, but in a 10-minute surf through a random selection of US ships & auxiliaries, I found that approximately half had changed their classification at some stage in their lives. To give you some idea, the ones I found were: USS Long Island (CVE-1), USS Commencement Bay (CVE-105), USS Salish (ATA-187), USS Adept (AFD-23), USNS Asterion (T-AF-63), USNS Observation Island (T-AGM-23), USCGC Staten Island (WAGB-278), USS Kitty Hawk (AKV-1), USS Israel (DD-98), USS Edithia (YP-214), USS Lydonia (SP-700), USS Dennis J. Buckley (DD-808). Food for thought, certainly.

In anser to Graeme's third point, if you disambiguate by year, there's no need to use vessel type disambiguation at all See my suggestion below. Shem (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following, but perhaps it's not uncontroversial:

• Do not use predisambiguations: The first for a ship article name should be the name of the ship without any disambiguators per the common pattern Wikipedia (Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad rather than Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad (1769)). If the name is not unique to a ship (eg Admiral Kuznetsov) then it should be disambiguated with "(ship)" - Admiral Kuznetsov (ship) instead of Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. If the ship's name is not unique, a year-of-launch disambiguator should be added, but only to the extent that they are actually needed to create a unique article name (Achille (1803 ship) rather than French ship Achille (1803)). "Ship" is not needed where a proper prefix exists (eg HMS, USS, etc.)
• Do not backdate prefixes: HMS and similar ship prefixes should not be applied to ships that never used it in their own time. It should only be backdated where it is a common name in literature (Antelope (1546 ship) rather than HMS Antelope (1546))
• Year of launch is preferable to pennant numbers: Year of launch is more recognizable than pennant numbers (HMS Ark Royal (1937) rather than HMS Ark Royal (91)).

Shem (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this debate has been so long that it is extremely hard to find the starting point, but I believe that the following should be taken into account:

1. Shem is right is saying that the term HMS should not be used for British/English warships from before the date whenm the term "His/Her Majesty's Ship" was introduced. The problem is that the term (and use of the initials) evolved over many years, and was not brought in at a specific time. It is certainly wrong to use the term before 1660, when the Royal Navy did not exist under that name (and absolutely crazy to use it for ships during 1649-1660, when the English Commonwealth abolished the concept and "His Majesty" was the hostile opponent of the state). For much of the next two centuries the practice was to use "His/Her Majesty's ..." followed by the type of vessel - ship, brig, cutter, etc (remember that pre-steam the word "ship" had a far more specific use and was limited to three-masted vessels square-rigged on the fore and main masts). So for the numerous Cherokee class vessels referred to in this debate the proper term might be HMB rather than HMS. Two small complications in this - from 1689 to 1694 it would be "Their Majesties' ..." (William and Mary were joint monarchs), and some sailinh warships changed their rig from two-masted to three-masted (i.e. "HM Brig" to "HM Ship") or vice-versa.

2. Until 1948 pennant numbers were liable to change, as has been referred to above. Of course, they did not exist before WW1 (and I suspect that most of the arguments in favour of using them as disambiguators come from people whose primary interest is in post-1914 warships, and have not perhaps grasped that some 7,000+ British warships were built before that date), and when first introduced they were changed periodically (the numerals as well as the flag superior). They remained mostly stable from 1919 to 1939, but changed again during the massive construction programmes of WW2 - the flag superiors mainly, but in some cases the numerical parts also. Remember also that they were introduced as a code, and that part of the coding system was designed with half a thought of confounding opponents (It may or may not confuse the enemy, Hardy, but by God it confuses me ....). It has only been since 1948 that the pennant numbers have remained stable throughout a ship's life. At the risk of repeating what I have said elsewhere, the pennant number system is not the same as the US hull numbers scheme, where the numbers are allocated consecutively to warships of a given type and remain consistent throughout that warship's life.

3. Using launch dates as disambiguators is the only practical way of dealing with a profusion of repetitive use of ships' names; and that entails using those before disambiguations articles are written. To take an examble referred to earlier, there may at present be only one entry for a French warships called Mercure, but there were different French naval vessels of this name launched in 1662 (actually as Mercoeur!), 1670, 1696, 1745 (actually not launched then, she was the former British sloop HMS Mercury captured and put into service by the French in 1745), 1783, 1797, 1806 and 1842, and that's before we start on the steam-driven vessels of that name. So using the date is a suffix is an essential requirement as nothing else will work.

4. Ships' names sometime get changed, and this is another complication. Surely we should have the convention that the name under which the article for that ship should be referenced should be the name that she was given when first launched, rather than names she had during construction (a period of most likely change) or several years after first coming into service.

5. A final warning. Thousands of ships' articles are currently cross-referenced by links within other articles. Most often these other articles were written or amended by writers other than the person who wrote the article you are amending - and you may be totally unaware of the other articles which cross-reference to the title you want to change. Re-titling is going to break tens of thousands of these links, so please be careful!

• I hope that the foregoing helps, although I suspect it may only add to the confusion. The problem is that we are dealing with a very confused system, which was not developed as a system but evolved piecemeal, and while patterns can be found there are numerous exceptions. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I note that we don't disambiguate other things on intial year eg John Smith (Labour Party leader) rather than John Smith (1938) and we have naval related examples in HMS Ferret (shore establishment 1940) where the year is a secondary disambiguator to a descriptive term.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stating the type of ship rather than year is certainly more in line with other types of article. I oppose the idea of using the year (unless extra disam is needed), it provides very little use as just HMS Daring (2006). The type of ship is far more important than the single year it was launched or commissioned. If the method is going to change from using pennant numbers / hull classifications it should be to the class of the ship. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But the disambiguator isn't there because of its importance to the article - it's there to disambiguate it from other articles of the same name. HMS Daring (2006) is disambiguated effectively from HMS Daring (1893) with the minimum of text and without fail, making for a simple and effective system; one which works across all types and nationalities. Shem (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• There are two problems with BritishWatcher's argument. The first is that where a name is re-used for several vessels, those vessels tend to be of the same type of ship. To illustrate using your example of HMS Daring, the ships launched in 1893, 1914 (although this one was renamed Lance in 1913), 1932, 1949 and 2006 were all destroyers; so disambiguation is not achieved by using the type. The second problem is that a ship can be modified (or re-classified) from one type to another type during its life. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But they were not (Type 45 Destroyers) which id rather be in the name than the year the ship was launched if we can not use pennant numbers. Also if there is a problem we can always use year as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• re above 4. Ship names - where the ship name changes we have in the past had the article at the name that the vessel had for either the majority of, or the most significant part of, its history. Where it had significant use under two names and two "owner"s sometimes two separate (substantial) articles has been the solution. In either case, redirects have picked up the slack. No change is required to current practice.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Noted, Graeme. I can see a difficulty, however, in deciding which part of a ship's history is the most significant (and of course, it may not be the longest part - with some ships, the most significant part might be a minor period chronologically). An interesting problem is the mass renaming which occured in 1660; most of these ships' articles are entitled by the names received in 1660, rather than the names they had borne throughout the 1650s. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to note that there is precedent for using year as disambiguator (when necessary) in other types of articles, like film titles. e.g., Cape Fear (1962 film) and Cape Fear (1991 film). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Valid point. I note that in that case, there is a type as well as a year disambiguator. Now for HMS Whatever, adding a year would disambiguate the various ones. However in the case of prefixless ships eg the (imaginary) French Je ne sais quoi pair you might need Je ne sais quoi (1870 ship) and Je ne sais quoi (1970 ship). GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you could disambiguate any ship without a prefix by simply adding the year before "ship" with that type of naming scheme. I'm guessing that the number of exceptions would be extremely low, or possibly even non-existent. If any such exceptions do actually exist, they could most likely be dealt with by specifying the type of vessel or its nationality, but most likely never both.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing by "type" over "when". another couple of hypothetical ships: the German Wass that sailed on a voyage of exploration in the 19th Century and and the Wass a destroyer of the Second World War. Wass (ship) and Wass (warship) or Wass (1845) and Wass (1939)?

If it is simply going to be the year it should be Wass (1845 ship) and Wass (1939 ship). Including "ship" with the year certainly looks better than the year alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But if we only had the WWII ship and Wass a type of agricultural implement we would have Wass (warship) and Wass (tool), now if we add in a newly launched harbour operations ship would not it be simpler if that was Wass (tugboat) rather than Wass (2010 ship) AND moving the first to Wass (1939 ship)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This may of been raised before but if we do go by year what is the method to be used for future ships like USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I've missed something, but I haven't seen a proposal here to change disambiguation by hull classification symbol for USN vessels. So, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) would remain unchanged. It is an interesting question vis-a-vis uncommissioned RN ships, though. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this proposal was about all ships. Changing from using pennant numbers/hull classifications to the year. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, BritishWatcher, could you say that again for the hard-of-thinking? Shem (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when are names and hull classification numbers in combination actually to be considered the "official" name of a US Navy ship? As far as I understand it's no more than an alternative designation for use by the military itself. The way it's inserted in every single title seems awfully similar to the way national prefixes have been added to just about everything. Both USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Ronald Reagan are very poignant examples that don't really require additional disambiguation. I mean, the way it's used now, it implies that even the brackets are part of the name. Surely that can't be correct.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we see far too often an article that starts "HMS Tuscan (R56) was a ...", as if that's her name. I'm no expert on US Ships, and I'd welcome an opinion from such an expert, but it seems to me that every US Ship article starts this way ("USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ..."), and if the hull classification isn't really part of the name, then that's wrong. Shem (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear BritishWatcher, as a small point, just how many articles on "future ships" do you anticipate we need? Agreed, the discussion we have been having excludes the US Navy (for which no-one is suggesting that the current system of using hull numbers should be changed), so your query presumably covers only non-US future construction and I see no point in writing speculative articles on individual future warships before they are launched; nowadays all significant warships are part of development schemes, so we will have - do have - articles on series such as the Type 45 destroyer (to take an example); but there is no point in concocting articles on individual ships within such a series before they are built. Far better use of your time would be to assist in producing articles on ships which have already been built - there are many thousands of these still awaiting authors. In the remote event that such an article on a "future ship" is somehow required, modern construction programmes mean that we do have anticipated launch dates from the time that a ship's name is first known. Rif Winfield (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So why is hull classification for the US ships acceptable but pennant numbers for Royal Naval vessels totally unacceptable and requiring urgent change? Why the difference? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think because US hull IDs appear to be somewhat more consistent and less confusin than that of the Royal Navy. But I agree that the discussion should be to replace all ID numbers as disambiguators with dates or not to replace them at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some form of agreement?

I would suggest that we identify what has been agreed and what remains up for discussion at this point. From the above conversations, I would suggest that we're agreed on the following:

• Ships that never carried the "HMS" prefix should have it removed (so, Antelope (1546 ship))
• Disambiguation by year (and "ship" if not uniquely a ship name) is preferable to nationality-type pre-disambiguation (so, La Réale, Graf Zeppelin (ship), Wass (2010 ship))

We seem to be reaching consensus that:

• Consistent disambiguation for HMS-prefixed ships by year rather than pennant number is optimal (so, HMS Daring (2006))

We're still discussing:

• The use of hull classification numbers for US Ships vice the same system as other ships

It's worth noting that we need to formally agree the first two points before we can start re-naming those anachronistic "HMS" articles, because we need to agree the new name for them. I started off arguing against change, so like any convert, perhaps I'm a over-enthusiastic about my new opinion - please leap in here and slow me down! Shem (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose changing all Royal Naval ships if this is not an agreement to change all ships, including US ones to use the year rather than hull classification/pennant numbers. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose it being HMS Daring (2006). If we have to go by the year we should say HMS Daring (2006 ship) although i am far from convinced a change is needed at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I also am unclear why we are just talking about the Royal Navy, and possibly expanding this to remove US hull classifications too. What about the French Navy, whose vessels include pennant numbers in their titles and i presume other european vessel articles do the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understood from the discussion(s) above - pennant numbers (for all nations) and US hull classfication (as well as Canadian by extension) were not considered suitable disambiguators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats what i originally thought (although ive not read through the entire debate), but some of the comments above suggest otherwise. There should be no agreement to change Royal Naval vessels unless all other European Pennant numbers are to be removed along with US hull classifications. Two comments above said this debate excludes US hull classification and that isnt what is being proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot agree with the removal of hull classifications or modern pennant numbers from article titles. As someone pointed out above, these numbers are much more accessable (certainly more accessable than launch year) to the public because they are painted on the hulls in giant two storey high numbers! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kralizec - hull/pennant numbers should not be removed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a serious argument? Most people who know something about a ship (and want to know whether a given article is about that ship or another of the same name) aren't standing next to the hull at the time. The hull may not even still exist. The year is much more accessible to a general audience.--Kotniski (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A year being stated on a disam page is certainly helpful to the reader (when they are able to look at a list of years and pick the most obvious). But a ships pennant number/ classification is far more valid information throughout the ships life than the specific year it was launched, especially as some would think the year of commissioning should be used. Its clear there is nowhere near consensus for this radical proposal. Year is fine for ships before pennant/hull classifications arrived, but if they have them there is no need for the year. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this is another good reason to use year: we can then use year for all ships, without confusingly switching systems at the advent of hull numbers. It doesn't really matter whether we use the year of launch or commissioning - either would provide context for non-specialists (who don't need to know the exact year, just the general period), which the hull number simply doesn't (it's an important piece of information to be included in the article, but not useful as a disambiguator in the title).--Kotniski (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm completely with Kotniski on the preference for years over pennant numbers or hull classifications; both because the year of launch effectively disambiguates in every case, and because readers will find their target more easily by period than by ID number. Shem (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Predisambiguation - can we make clearer the difference between disambiguating terms in front of the ship name ("pre-disambiguators"?) as in "British cruiser HMS Where" and disambiguation before it is required - HMS Where (cruiser) when there is only one Where - which is my understanding of "predisambiguation".GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this debate has diverged into a number of subissues. I personally would probably only support ending the "country shiptype shipname" convention, which I have always thought to be very clumsy and which is clearly at odds with the rest of the project. I don't support any of the other three proposals listed, at best I think they would need considerably more debate and it's not at all clear what advantage any of them would produce over existing conventions. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive no problem with a proposal to change "country shiptype shipname" to something else like... Name (1514 English Ship) or just Name (1514 ship). Its this other proposal to remove pennant numbers/hull classifications (like HMS Daring (D32) and replace it with HMS Daring (2006) that i am concerned about and oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see pennant numbers/hull IDs as disambiguators at all. I see them as part of the ship's ID, which just happen to serve at times as useful disambiguators. So I too see no need to replace them with launch dates. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pennant and hull numbers are certainly relevant enough to highlight in the lead of any ship article, but it seems rather obvious that they're more specific alternative designators. After all, no sensible article writer would ever consistently refer to "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)" in prose. It's either "(USS) Ronald Reagan" or "CVN-76" (without brackets, naturally) with a heavy preference for the former.

Using the launch year doesn't seem like it would confuse anyone more pennant/hull numbers do now. At least not in the long run. But it could allow for a naming system that would be infinitely more conistent and predictable than what we have now. It would do away with several categories of organization-specific exceptions and allow for a simpler, more compact guideline. Is that really more important than keeping the complicated nomenclature of a dozen or so modern navies?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And would it be standard to write the year of launch after the ships name in prose? Its pennant number / hull classification is more relevant to a ship throughout its life than the year of its launch and it would make more sense in prose too. The other problem with the year, is some would think it should be the year the ship was commissioned rather than just launched. I do not think a change is needed in this area of ships with pennants / hull classifications. Obviously just saying the year is fine for ships without such numbers/classifications. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline even states at the moment that hull numbers can change, so this "throughout its life" argument isn't entirely clear. Anyway, why use two separate systems, when we could be using just one (and one that works better for readers too)? --Kotniski (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We weren't discussing use in prose per se. It was only a way to illustrate that hull IDs should be considered alternative designations, parts of more complex compound names.

Navy IDs seem to more like an obstacle than a practical solution for disambiguation. They require readers to have previous knowledge and forces us to complicate conventions. If we used only years this guideline would be both shorter and easier to apply. I admit that the confusion of launch and commissioning years is a possibility, but considering that these two are seldom more than a few years apart, the problem seems rather trivial when compared with the complex alternative.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, guys, the only time readers are going to see the disambiguators other than at the top of the page, is at ship indexes. All of which should have a brief description next to the entry (see, for example, USS Enterprise). There is no difficulty finding the right article in the current structure. Moreover, no one is going to type in USS Enterprise (1938) any more than they'd type in USS Enterprise (CV-6) (I actually suspect more would type in the latter, but that's neither here nor there). To argue that the year of launch is more obvious to non-experts is laughable - they require just as muchg previous knowledge of the ship as the hull/pennant numbers. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But when you're typing in, for example, H.M.S. Warspite in the search bar and all the Warspites automatically come up, what possible relevance has "HMS Warspite (03)" to anything? What I want to know, and no one seems to have discussed here, is why so many British warships which went out of service before 1948 have been disambiguated by their pendant number, which they used for only a fraction of their lives. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is in regards to Kotniski's question above asking me if my statements on this topic are "a serious argument" [2]. Using someone else's example of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), it appears that the official USN site for the ship is named "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)" and all of the news articles on the site describe the ship as "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)" [3]. Likewise "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)" gets 36,600 Ghits (with the official USN site being the #1 hit), while "USS Ronald Reagan (2001)" gets 253 Ghits (with the Wilson Creek Winery being the top one listed). That is why I view any attempt to remove hull classification and modern pennant numbers from article titles as "a problem in search of a solution" or "trying to force a round thole into a square gunwale" ... hence my total opposition. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding pennant numbers - the article says use began around 1910. There was some rearrangement of the letter part in 1940 mostly with the smaller vessels but there was a lot of wartime construction of these after that. During much of its wartime service (the most notable part) a destroyer probably carried one pennant numberGraemeLeggett (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To Kralizec! I would say that people will search for "USS Ronald Reagan", and find what they're looking for. On the other hand, if they do what I did this morning, and search for HMS Dauntless in Wikipedia, they'll find 3 ships disambiguated by year of launch, and two by pennant numbers (D33 & D45). Even though I have a good feel for the right pennant number for these ships, I still managed to open up the 50-year old Danae-class ship rather than the one I wanted. How does that help our readers?

To Graeme I'd say have a look at HMS Beaver (1911) (5 numbers in 5 years) or any of her sisters to see why pennant numbers for early ships do not make good disambiguators. Not withstanding the fluid nature of WWI destroyer pennant numbers, very many RN WWII destroyers changed their pennant numbers in 1940, along with many of the capital ships - see Pennant number. Even USS Enterprise (CVN-65) has changed its hull symbol. Shem (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kralizec, and what if readers would confuse launch with commissioning? We're talking one or two years in most cases. Perhaps a few more in certain others. It still gives a highly accurate idea of the historical context with an absolute minimum of information applicable to any ship that has ever been built. If a random reader sees HMS Ark Royal (1950) or HMS Ark Royal (1950 ship) in the search field they would immediately go "ah, a ship that went into service sometime in the 1950s". HMS Ark Royal (R09) would at best produce an "ah, one of the many ships completed sometime during the last 100 years". And that's assuming they actually know when pennant numbers were invented (I didn't before this debate, and I'm not navally illiterate). And in this case it's merely one of several navy ship ID systems in use.

What you're suggesting for Ronald Reagan is actually no more useful than moving Bengali language to Bengali language (Bangla). Is it correct in a narrow technical sense and does it reflect official reality in some sense? Yes. Is it necessary for readers to find the article they're looking for and does it make identification any easier? Absolutely not. If you're looking to specify naming details, you're really doing it in the wrong place. Article naming is a matter of how we sort articles on Wikipedia for correctness as well as ease of use, economy of words and predictability. Various alternative names and designations, official or not, are supposed to be handled with redirects and in prose in the articles themselves. No one is really benefited by our cramming too much info into article names.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you're missing the point. Hull ID/pennant numbers are part of a ship's ID, they aren't there as disambiguators - they just happen to double as useful disambiguators. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if that's the point, then all the more reason to drop them - we don't cram extraneous information into article titles, we aim to use the most common name, which in the case of ships is surely invariably the ship name itself without any identifying numbers.--Kotniski (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear BritishWatcher, you seem to have missed the point that (unlike the US hull number system) pennant numbers for British and many other European warships do not always remain fixed throughout a ship's life; during wartime periods particularly (WW1 and WW2) both the flag superiors and less frequently the following numerals were changed, so that trying to use pennant numbers in article titles as a disambiguator can only confuse matters. In addition, pennant numbers are only a fairly recent invention, have been in existence for less than a century; there are thus obviously no pennant numbers for the several centuries of British/English warships before this (involving perhaps 8,000 or 9,000 individual warships). Having two systems of affixed disambiguators will certain confuse the non-specialist reader, and will probably lead to the creation of two differing but parallel systems of articles, created by writers who are unfamiliar with this debate and indeed with the naming conventions adopted. Such a step will certainly discredit Wkipedia in the mind of casual enquirers. Cordially, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ships can also frequently change their names, but we still have to use one of those names for the title. As for your concern about "different but parallel systems of articles", that hasn't occurred yet and there's no reason to think it will suddenly do so. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The pennant number issue also applies to the HMS prefix though. Some ships will have HMS, others will not. All recent ships will have pennant numbers, older ships will not. I do not see the huge confusion this causes, and if there is confusion they can always read the articles on pennant numbers to find out when it was introduced. If having a bunch of numbers as a year in the title may confuse people thinking that too is a pennant number, then the simple solution is to add "ship" to it. Example (1543 ship) is obviously more likely to be a year than Example (1543). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's most appropriate if there's no ship prefix; but to say "HMS Example (1900 ship)" is duplicating the information.--Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I might add I'm strongly opposed to that kind of "double disambiguation". I'm generally in favour of the briefest possible title that gets the point across. Either a date or a hull ID, but not both a date and the word "ship", I think that sort of approach is just an insult to the readers' intelligence. Gatoclass (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about ships without prefixes? Just the year or "(<year> ship)"? I know I favor the shortest possible alternative, but I'm not sure if other debaters here would agree.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Prefixes are part of the ship's name; the only time ships are not referred to without a prefix is for grammatical purposes (i.e,. not repeating "HMS" five times in a sentence). Removing them is a non-starter. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question concerned ships which don't have prefixes at all. Personally I think that if such a name needs disambiguation, then the first thing we need to tell readers is that it refers to a ship (as opposed to a person, a country, an idea or whatever). If saying that it's a (particular kind of) ship still leaves ambiguity, then I'd include the year in addition to the information that we're talking about a ship. That seems to be what the guideline already recommends for civilian ships; I don't see any reason not to extend this natural system to all ships.--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All naval ships don't have prefixes, whether they're contemporary or backdated. It's even possible that they make up the majority of all individually recorded warships, or at the very least a very sizeable minority. So for example, should it be De Zeven Provinciën (1665) or De Zeven Provinciën (1665 ship)?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the former. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The former could be misinterpreted as referring to a political grouping formed in 1665.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind whether we have De Zeven Provinciën (1665) or De Zeven Provinciën (1665 ship), but there will be some ships which will require "ship" in order to make some sort of sense (maybe Jesus of Lubeck (1544 ship) rather than Jesus of Lubeck (1544), and many others like it named after people). Shem (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If clarity feels necessary for some of the less-than-familiar names then I feel we should go for "(<year> ship)" for all articles without prefixes for the sake of consistency. Except those with completely unique names, of course. An article on the Jesus of Lübeck will likely never require any disambiguation.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see them just disambiguated with the date, "ship" seems redundant to me. All that's really required to disambiguate one article from another is for them to have slightly different titles, and dates will achieve that in 999 out of 1,000 occasions. Gatoclass (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One huge problem I see with using the date as the dab is that most people aren't going to know the launch year of a ship. If you're looking for a certain HMS Ark Royal that served in WW2, what date are they likely to search for? The date of sinking? "1939"? "1941"? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but they would have an approximate idea of the era of the ship and anyway, that's what dab pages are for. Gatoclass (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't wish to get drawn into this aspect of the debate, and my interest does not really cover the era of the hull and pennant IDs (which may make this a slightly more useful comment?). I don't find these things useful in picking an article to read. If I'm just using the search tool, I would need to know the pennant number of the ship I'm after in advance in order to go straight there - if I don't know it (and the chances are pretty good that I don't, and so it most likely follows for anyone who isn't really into their ships), then I have to first go to the index page. If the year was used instead, I would be far, far more likely to pick the right article. Yes the ships have these numbers, but they aren't part of the name, they are their identification codes as far as I understand it. The name and launch year tells a reader much more about whether they are picking the article they want than a meaningless number. It's not meaningless to you, I know, but to me and the vast majority of the readers, it is. That's my first point; the second is along the same lines but more specific. HMS King George V (41), HMS Hood (51), amongst others. These are quite frankly, awful titles. Besides looking like shorthand years, creating confusion right from the start, as far as I am aware these numbers were never even painted on the hull of these ships, and so who exactly is going to know they even had them? This is information that belongs in the article, certainly, but in those two cases and others like them, I cannot see any justification at all for including it in the titles. Martocticvs (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Classes

I just noticed a detail that's pretty relevant to this debate. All article names about ship classes appear to specify ship types even though it's quite unnecessary in almost all cases. That means we have have Ohio class submarine and Amagi class battlecruiser rather than Ohio class or Amagi class. Some examples do require disambiguation (Invincible class, Enterprise class), but these appear to be in the minority.

The system appears to be downright illogical when applied to planned classes, like Montana class battleship, which never resulted in a single functional ship. Those cases are the clearest examples that a ship class is an abstract, if highly detailed, plan for ships with one or more concrete manifestations rather than a group of ships.

The reason I noticed this is because I found the lengthy and (to an outsider) seemingly pointless debate about what article name to use for Scharnhorst class battleship. If the convention had kept it simple enough to allow for Scharnhorst class (amazingly enough still a redlink!), much of that debate never would have happened.

So what exactly is the point of this particular aspect of the naming conventions?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems better to include destroy/ battleship/submarine etc in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Name class shiptype is how these classifcations are generally phrased in publications. It also ticks the boxes for the first two elements of article name "Recognizability" and "Naturalness". Does it make more sense if you add an "s" to the end "Town class cruisers" as an article name? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, there is also Scharnhorst class armored cruiser, so Scharnhorst class should be a dab if anything. As for the debate never having happened, that's unlikely, as the argument in general was how we should treat them in the article, not just the title. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "much of the debate", not all of it. Something like half of the discussion was about determining the article name, but no one managed to even hint at the least complicated solution. I admit I completely missed the presense of the other Scharnhorst class, but the WWII ship class till seems to be the primary topic. By the normal rules of disambiguation, the WWII class should be at Scharnhorst class and provided with a hatnote to Scharnhorst class armored cruiser.

When I did a few Google Books searches, it seemed easier to find "XXX class" than "XXX class <shiptype>" when actually discussing the class. The shiptype is often specified, it's almost always done due to adhere to simple grammatical rules. Compare references to the class...:

• "Whitworth reported to the Admiralty that a ship of the Scharnhorst class..."
• "...the latest German armoured cruisers of the Scharnhorst class."
• "In this they were similar to the Scharnhorst class."

...with specific references to actual units:

• "Two battlecruisers were also approved in the program in an attempt to respond to the two Scharnhorst class battlecruisers Germany had laid down in 1935."
• "Whitworth believed he was facing a Scharnhorst class battleship..."
• "These three views of a Scharnhorst-class battlecruiser at various times in their careers..."

If you look at the wording in many of our own articles just "XXX class" is very common in leads, especially when you consider that in general article names tend to have a heavy influence on lead prose. I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with either recognizability or naturaleness. What's natural about adding something other the actual name of the topic? In what context is there any possible room for confusion?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking through some naval sources on hand, I found that the Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships volumes all identify the ship type (i.e., "Bismarck class battleships"). Garzke & Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II do not (so "Bismarck Class"), though I imagine the fact that the former book covers all warships and the latter is just about battleships may play into it. Gröner's German Warships 1815-1945 also does not use the warship type, though the entries are arranged in chapters by type and by era, so again, it would be redundant. Staff's excellent volumes on German BCs and BBs of WWI have a somewhat different solution: "Battleships of the König class." Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II doesn't mention class at all, the entries have a ship type heading, followed by the ships of the class (so, "First class cruisers" at the top of the page, with "Mikuma, Mogami, Kumano, Suzuya at the start of the entry).

As for the later Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being the primary topic, their class article was viewed almost 2,500 times this month, while the WWI cruisers were viewed just under 1,000 times. While the WWII ships get more views, it's not enough to justify calling them a primary topic (generally you need an order of magnitude or more for that). BTW, the WWI-era ships participated in a pair of pretty famous engagements at the outbreak of war, Coronel and Falkland Islands, and are fairly well-known themselves. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen for class

Should Wikipedia use X class ship or X-class ship? Although the former is used in article titles, the second form occurs frequently in articles: see, for example, the lead of Mogador class destroyer. I think a hyphen is correct here, as "X-class" is a compound adjective (compare WP:HYPHEN), but I'm open to persuasion. (However, a hyphen should not be used when the phrase is not used as a compound adjective: "Y is a ship of the X class", but "Y is an X-class battleship".) This is a minor issue that I and others have mentioned occasionally, but that has never been resolved satisfactorily; I hope that can be done now. Ucucha 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

it has been discussed at least a couple times in the past, and the result was what you said. Namely, that class names are hyphenated when serving as an adjective and not when serving as a noun. I think Dank participated in the most recent discussion, at WT:Hyphen, IIRC. Maybe he has the link to the discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That would imply that the titles of class articles should be hyphenated, and they are not. Ucucha 01:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenating them seems right to me too (unless we adopt the suggestion made somewhere above, that the articles be titled simply "X class").--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement that

“ a hyphen should not be used when the phrase is not used as a compound adjective: "Y is a ship of the X class", but "Y is an X-class battleship" ”

is completely correct. I would support renaming of class articles to insert the hyphen (should have been done a long time ago), but I do not support losing the ship type from the end - there are just too many classes of the same name for different type of ship (Fantome class sloop, Fantome class survey motor boat for example, and at least 8 "River classes"). Shem (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifying the ship type is obviously important in an example like the on you provided. No question there. But 95% of all class names are unique. So why demand ship type specification in all cases?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

for clarity as to what the article class refers to, information over minimalism? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that dropping the type specification will bring in additional confusion with non-maritime subjects. After all, it is not just ships which can be grouped into classes!

Also, for what most of us would describe as "naval ships" and which some people seem unaccountably to call "military ships" in this discussion, may I suggest that the word "warship" is a far easier and more recognisable description than simply "ship". Rif Winfield (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Rif on preference for the term warship. In the US, "naval ship" typically refers to MSC ships and "military ships" is used to group auxiliaries and warships. Haus^Talk 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that Fantome class is a redlink? That's one of the reasons why I believe predisambiguators is a bad idea.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't predisambiguation, it's providing readers an accurate, easily recognizable description of the contents of the article. That's the entire point of a title, not to force editors to properly create dab pages. Yes, Fantome class should be a dab page, but we should not compromise our titling system to identify these negligible problems. I say they're negligible because typing "Fantome class" into the search bar nets you both articles as the top two returns, followed by every ship article in the two classes. It's clearly not that much of a hindrance to those looking for the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we include the hyphen in titles in "X-class fooships"; I think it would lead to fewer cases of omitting the hyphen in the text. There's another argument for it, but this doesn't seem the be the best place for arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dank, I agree whole-heartedly. I'm bored of introducing hyphens, and it makes me feel like a pendant! Shem (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus here (though the section has been abused for a tangentially related matter). That means a lots of articles will need to be renamed; perhaps a job for a bot. Ucucha 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone will have to tweak {{sclass}} then. bahamut0013^words_deeds 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone will also have to tweak that new-fangled way of italicizing ship article titles Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help pointing out that choosing to insert an additional hyphen in an already over-complicated system strikes me as pretty weird. It seems like you're creating a lot of extra work for yourselves, bot or not bot. And it's not really about making it more efficient, intuitive or easier to use, but to make a rather gratuitous naming convention just a tad more grammatically correct.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for changes

Any major proposal to change the naming conventions must be presented to the ships and milhist projects for consensus. I'm pointing this out due to some conversation above about getting started on moving articles. Brad (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be pointed out to the wikiprojects of navies that will be impacted by any change or if there are not individual wikiprojects a note on their main article talk pages. US Navy / Royal Navy etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see anything hinting that we're about to start moving articles. The closest we've got so far is to try to determine whether it's even possible to agree on relevant suggestions for changes. Moving article would only be relevant once we'd actually agreed on any realistic suggestions. However, I wouldn't mind getting more input on the matter. Besides inviting users with a topic-specific interest, reaching out to those with a general interest in WP:NAME or WP:D seems appropriate.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Input from a wider variety of users would be useful in this debate I think. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific proposal

Since any changes have to start somewhere, I would propose - as a compromise between the conservatives and reformers, or simply as a useful and practical step - introducing and acting on the following specific changes (which would certainly keep the page-movers busy for quite some little while), summarizable as:

• military ships which have (had) no prefix to be subject to the same article titling conventions as civilian ships.

This would mean in practice that we

• (a) cease the encyclopedically questionable practice of "backdating" prefixes;
• (b) drop the very odd-looking and un-Wikipedia-like "nationality+type" would-be prefixes, replacing them with normal bracketed disambiguators where required.

Would this be a fair result given the foregoing discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems entirely right to me. Further discussion required for exactly what bracketed disambiguator is required. Shem (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise to me.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Being even more specific, then, I propose making this change (done for demonstration purposes; since reverted). Examples can be added once we start applying the new rules in practice.--Kotniski (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I take exception to the use of the phrase "To forestall attempts to move articles to the wrong place". Firstly as it is contrary to assuming good faith, secondly as it clashes with the preceding phrase "It is not a mistake to do that...". The intention should be to provide redirects from what people might be looking for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (but that isn't connected with my proposed change, since that wording is in the guideline already).--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could part (b) of the proposal be clarified to state if "normal bracketed disambiguators" means the current, standardized practice of consistent disambiguators (pennant number/hull classification, or absent either of those the launch date) or something else (like any of the half-dozen other things we have discussed)? If it is to follow the current standard guideline, then for example we would see Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61) moved to Juan Carlos I (L61), German cruiser Prinz Eugen moved to Prinz Eugen (1938), and French armoured cruiser Dupuy de Lôme (1887) moved to Dupuy de Lôme (1887). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2010

The proposal as it stands is to use the same system as for civilian ships, which as I understand it would mean "(ship)" is the preferred disambiguator, or "(year ship)" if necessary. Though I'd also be happy with using types of ship, like "(cruiser)"; or just years in cases where the name can't refer to anything else but ships.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

After considering all sides of this rather lengthy discussion, I can support dropping the Nationality type prefixes, however I am not sure if the civilian model is the best one to follow for the disambiguators. If a ship has a pennant number, we should stick to that, and if not, use the launch date. This closely matches what our sister projects appear to be doing. For example, es:Juan Carlos I (L-61), de:Prinz Eugen (1938), it:Giuseppe Garibaldi (551), pt:Encouraçado São Paulo (1909), etc. Here are seven of the first Warspites as examples.

Current system:

• HMS Warspite (1596)
• HMS Warspite (1666)
• HMS Warspite (1758)
• HMS Warspite (1807)
• HMS Warspite (1884)
• HMS Warspite (1893)
• HMS Warspite (03)

Proposed system that drops the prefix and disambiguates via the civilian ship system:

• Warspite (Great ship)
• Warspite (1666 third rate)
• Warspite (1758 third rate)
• HMS Warspite (third rate)
• HMS Warspite (armoured cruiser)
• HMS Warspite (protected cruiser)
• HMS Warspite (battleship)

Compromise solution that drops the artificial prefix, but disambiguates on pennant/hull classification or launch date:

• Warspite (1596)
• Warspite (1666)
• Warspite (1758)
• HMS Warspite (1807)
• HMS Warspite (1884)
• HMS Warspite (1893)
• HMS Warspite (03)

As you can see, disambiguating on the pennant/hull classification or the ship's launch year helps to avoid the otherwise confusing mess inherent with ships using popular names. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me clarify again (I know this is complicated): the proposal as it stands (which is already intended as a compromise) would not affect the "HMS" ships at all (except for those that were not really called HMS). So as far as these are concerned, your compromise solution is the one that's already being proposed. However, for unprefixed ships with hull numbers, such as the Juan Carlos I, I think we have to follow the civilian system, at least with names like that which could have other meanings than ships (since for a normal reader, these hull numbers don't say "this is a ship").--Kotniski (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Using "(ship)" rather than "(L61)" when there is only one ship by a particular name would be much easier on the readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So we would name the article Principe de Asturias (ship) instead of Principe de Asturias (R11), even though the Spanish Navy calls the ship Príncipe de Asturias (R-11)? This seems contrary to what WP:NAME tells us when it says, "an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic." Virtually any reader familiar with military ships is going to use the pennant/hull classification because world navies love tradition, and nothing says tradition like re-using the same ship name over and over again. This may be the first Principe de Asturias, but it is undoubtedly not the last one. Consistently naming ships with the pennant/hull classification/launch date makes less work for us in the long run, and benefits readers by making article names predictable and easy to find. No one wants to sit and ponder if Foch was the first ship of the French Navy to have that name: "is this the only Foch, so I have to search for Foch (ship)? Or was the French carrier just the latest ship to bear that name and I need to search for Foch (R99)?" — Kralizec! (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if another Principe de Asturias showed up on the radar (pun intended), then a dabpage or a redirect called Principe de Asturias (ship) should exist. This extra work would have to be done no matter what. As for Foch (ship), with the current proposal it would either be a dabpage (with two or more ships) or redirect to a more specific ship article with a more specific name (with a hatnote to other ship articles or more specifically named dabpage). At what point would any of this result in a confusing obstruction to someone searching for a specific ship named Foch?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Applying this to members of the Paluma class survey motor launch, the article on the lead ship would be titled HMAS Paluma (A 01) because it is not the first Paluma to serve in the RAN, but her sister ship Mermaid would be titled HMAS Mermaid (ship) because it is the first ship to have that name. To anyone not familiar with our esoteric naming conventions, naming three of the Paluma-class ships with their pennant numbers as disambiguators and one with "ship" as the disambiguator seems sloppy and confusing. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply HMAS Mermaid would do with this proposal since it's a unique ship name. I don't know if that's "sloppy", but it's certainly more intuitive than "HMAS Mermaid (A 02)". The disambiguator "(ship)" is only applicable in cases where a ship shares it's name with something else, but is the only ship around. In a few fairly uncommon exceptions it should probably also be used for the most notable ship with any particular name, like Bismarck (ship) or Vasa (ship).

Oh, and since we're once again getting into the discussion official designations, upholding traditions and all that, consider sites like this. The idea that hull/pennant numbers are somehow inseparable from ship names is mostly a matter of what sources or context you choose to focus on.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely none of my reference books use the pennant number of ships as part of the name, and it's worth noting that even the site suggested by Kralizec! as supporting the naming style "Príncipe de Asturias (R-11)" has as its title the simple name "PORTAAVIONES PRÍNCIPE DE ASTURIAS", with no pennant number. What I do see increasingly is information on the web which draws from Wikipedia using the pennant number as part of the name; this is simply wrong. Shem (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where to place this in this great wall of text, but numerous civilian and quasi-civilian ships have hull numbers (i.e. MV Capt. Steven L. Bennett (T-AK-4296) and hundreds of others) or pennant numbers (i.e. RFA Wave Ruler (A390) and many others). Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but note that RFA Wave Ruler (A390) is linked from both RFA Wave Ruler and A390, but that the quite obvious Wave Ruler is still a redlink.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wave Knight is a redirect for RFA Wave Knight (A389), twikipedia is a work in progress.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am blissfully ignorant of the inner workings of the MN, but RFA seems to be as integral part of the name as USNS would be to a MSC ship. Could someone from that side of the pond illuminate us? Haus^Talk 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying that there seems to be a lot of examples that indicate that some of the most obvious redirects aren't created by WP:SHIP members while some highly specific ones geared at aficionados are.

And, to get back to what Haus' first observation, I agree that there endless possibilities to add any number of details to the names of ship articles, including civilian vessels. The question is whether it's done for the sake of those with a specialized interest or readers in general.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem as usual to be straying from the original point. On the hull numbers, I've been looking at the sources and external links for the articles which brought me here, Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61), and very rarely is it referred to with "L61" as part of its name. (It's sometimes referred to with the prefix LHD.) I would say that we can happily move such articles to such names as Juan Carlos I (ship), as this tells the reader accurately what the vessel's usual name is, while also distinguishing it from the person it's named after, in the style that is standard across Wikipedia. (Of course, when making such a move, we must check that the hull number is recorded at the top of the article, so as not to lose the information, but I presume that in nearly every case it will be.)

I would also say that we can happily rename any articles we know of which have received inappropriate prefixes, like backdated HMS's.

And if we decide on the above two points, then that will provide quite enough work for now in terms of page renaming, so I suggest we leave discussion of any other possible changes for the as yet unspecified future.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Shem (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, that is a pennant number, not a hull number. I've still yet to see any widespread support of removing hull numbers. Haus^Talk 10:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any convincing evidence that these numbers are anyhting but an alterantive designation used in very specific contexts. Even WP:SHIP members don't really use these types of IDs outside of article leads. Why keep them in article names that don't actually require them for disambiguation?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is precisely this: numerous editors have addressed the hull number issue above and I can't imagine anyone looking through the arguments and determining that there is a consensus for change. I'm personally undecided on the pennant number/year debate. However, when I detect that the two are being conflated, I will point out that they are distinct issues. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So you mean that it should be Bismarck (ship) but Charles de Gaulle (R91)?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing other than there is no consensus to remove hull numbers from titles. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But are you (or is anyone) suggesting that there are cases where we should use hull numbers where we wouldn't use pennant numbers? Examples? Reasons?--Kotniski (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that hull numbers are not pennant numbers. If a consensus is reached specifically to modify how pennant numbers are used in titles, it won't automatically apply to hull numbers. Because they're not the same thing. If you search through this page for instances of the word "hull" you'll see there is very little support for modifying how hull numbers are used in titles. Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand that (although there seem to be quite a few people who would like to dispense with hull numbers altogether), but for the present proposal to work, we would have to accept that some hull numbers (at least those of ships which have no ship prefix and which require disambiguating from things other than ships) probably have to go. Is that a great sacrifice for anyone?--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there are, in fact it's probably quite the opposite. Disposing with hull numbers altogether (especially for US ships, which are widely known by them) is a poor choice. USS Iowa (BB-61) is far better and more easily recognizable than USS Iowa (1942 ship).

I think the thing we're missing here is we're really just arguing for replacing one arcane and impenetrable disambiguating guideline with another, equally arcane and impenetrable guideline. No one is going to type in "USS Iowa 1942 ship." People are going to type in USS Iowa, which will land them at the dab page, where they can easily find the right article. I'd argue that more people would know the ship's hull number than her year of launch (or any relevant year). Moreover, disambiguation of pages is more for our (the editors) benefit than the readers; in the event that a reader types in HMS Hood (which redirects to HMS Hood (51), and they're not searching for the battlecruiser, that they're at the wrong article should be eminently clear from the first sentence. Hatnotes and dab links will quite easily get the reader to the right page. As Peter points out far below, there are problems with missing dab pages, hatnotes, etc., but that should be fixed as the problems are identified, not by forcing us to move thousands of pages to find at most a few hundred missing or poorly located dab pages.Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Several of us have already pointed out that years are actually a better disambiguator, because people don't have to know the exact year in order to recognize that they've got the right ship, whereas hull numbers are meaningless unless you happen to be familiar with the ship itself (in which case you'll know roughly what year it was launched anyway). But the current proposal doesn't concern the cases you mention - it concerns those prefix-less ships for which the only way of forcing the hull number into the title is to adopt either a false prefix or a very odd-looking prefix-like phrase of the "German battleship" type.--Kotniski (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several have pointed it out, but several of us remain unconvinced. As Parsecboy pointed out, we are talking about replacing one arcane, impenetrable guideline with another, and for my money I find Charles de Gaulle (R91) a whole lot more useful than either Charles de Gaulle (ship) or Charles de Gaulle (1994). — Kralizec! (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, you're missing my point. Readers aren't going to be finding the article via the "ship+year" disambiguator any more than they would by the hull number (and I'd argue it's actually less often). In fact, let's look at some statistics: Bismarck (battleship) and Bismarck (ship) account for a measly 148 and 106 hits, respectively, out of a total of over 50,000 for German battleship Bismarck last month. You actually get far more hits via Battleship Bismarck, at 706 last month. The same holds true for Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, which was viewed a little under 8,500 times last month, and only 25 times via the Akagi (aircraft carrier) redirect. It seems that essentially no one is searching by those terms, so the argument that using "ship" instead of the "German battleship"/etc. prefix makes things easier to find appears to be incorrect. Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm skeptical about counting hits for specific article names (they're obviously a result of an existing convention and that most people probably get here by googling or clicking internal links), but I do agree that we don't seem to be getting closer to reaching a consensus on the whole "(ship)" issue. Any chance we could at least settle for merely dropping the "<nationality> <type>" prefix and pre-dating of "HMS" from the convention and try to wind down this debate? Those two issues have always been my primary concerns.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was to demonstrate that the proposed system is no more (and probably less) familiar systen that we use now. Yes, the vast majority of those hits to Bismarck are from internal links. That's part of my broader point: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only problem with our current naming policy is that it doesn't mirror the standard parenthetical disambiguator practice. But it doesn't have to. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well no, it doesn't have to, but it doesn't have not to either, and so far I don't really see what reasons can be presented for it not to (we seem to have finally established the reason it came to be like that - there are people who are very insistent on putting hull numbers in everywhere, and the only reasonable way of achieving that "goal" with ships that don't have prefixes is to invent a surrogate prefix). All these arguments about page hits are totally irrelevant, as they result from links. I really don't know what inspires the view that "Charles de Gaulle (R91) is more useful..." - it sounds like the view of a specialist who doesn't understand the level of knowledge of ordinary but interested readers. Can we, however, at least agree on one small thing as a first step - to stop backdating prefixes? --Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's your assumption for why we use the nationality+type disambiguator, but it doesn't seem to be the case. That dates back to December 2001, when this page was still part of WP:NC. If you look at the comments made on this talk page in 2002-04, it was chosen because it's a natural disambiguator (though I should warn you that the old versions of this page aren't easy to wade through). Hull and pennant numbers aren't even mentioned in the discussion.

As for page hits resulting from links, that's exactly my point. Why on earth should be go through the hassle of changing a system that works perfectly well, for absolutely zero benefit? I would much rather have us spend our time improving articles than worrying about whether the title conforms to the general but not mandated disambiguating practices of the rest of Wikipedia. Please allow me to trot out that old standard..."a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

I can see both sides of the argument for prefixes. A related point is how should we treat ships that were never commissioned (and thus technically never carried the prefix). For example, USS Illinois (BB-65). There was a discussion some time ago about the fact that using USS is wrong, but on the other hand, the ship is commonly referred to with the prefix (see this, for instance). I guess I would say that we should follow what reliable sources say. For example, with Mary Rose, far more sources refer to the ship without the prefix than those that do (see some 4,000 without and only 12 with HMS. It seems the obvious choice in this case is to not use the prefix. The same may not be true for other ships, however. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On the "foolish consistency" theme, it seems to me that the current system is more guilty of that, as it tries to force all navy ships into a consistent pattern of "prefix"+name, even in cases where in reality there is no prefix to apply.--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a prefix, it's a natural method of disambiguation. Parsecboy (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean - it's not a prefix, so it should go where all other disambiguators go (after the name), but it's been left before the name for the purpose (I presume) of "consistency" with the other titles that really do have prefixes. With the result that many readers no doubt think that these phrases have something of the same status as real prefixes, which is untrue.--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good example[4] that these are considered to be some type of quasi-prefix.

Parsec, I'm also curious why (and the rest of WP:SHIP) choose to happily ignore your own conventions for both Mary Rose and Vasa (ship) while fiercely defending French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91). Why go with the logical, economical and intuitive Wikipedia naming standard in the first two cases, but enforce what amounts to a contested and controversial tradition on the third? For the Mary Rose you even actively argue that we should go by what's in the literature while at the same time saying we shouldn't do it for modern warships. After all, the "natural method of disambiguation" (even for ships that don't require it) that you're defending is virtually non-existent or at least in the minority outside of Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of literature doesn't have to disambiguate; most books don't have to deal with every single ship built by every single navy in history. Even those works like the Conway's series are split into several volumes and only extend back 150 years. Even other online encyclopedias, like Britannica, don't disambiguate, because they simply don't have the scope of articles that we do. Britannica has Dreadnought, the only article on a ship of that name; we have eight. So to make the argument that we're going things that no one else does is irrelevant, because no one else is confronted with the problem that we are. No one is using the solution you're suggesting either.

The question of backdating prefixes is a totally separate issue from that of disambiguation. Generally speaking, we should use the common name for an article title, hence no prefix for Mary Rose. Disambiguation is not a part of the name of the topic, and so is not bound by popular usage in the sense that the proper title is. As for Vasa, the article was at a series of titles, including HMS Vasa, HMS Wasa, Regalskepp Vasa, etc. before being moved to the current location in 2007 by you and two other editors. And as for why those two articles don't conform to the naming conventions, I frankly don't care. What time I have to spend here I'd much rather use improving articles, instead of attempting to ensure every one of our 40,000-odd articles conforms to the naming policy. Readers are still getting to those articles that don't match the naming structure. As I have said a few times in this discussion, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As Parsecboy says above, "You actually get far more hits via Battleship Bismarck". Amen to that ... the local museum ship, the battleship North Carolina, is generally called just that in local references ... "Battleship North Carolina", sometimes with and sometimes without capitalization of "Battleship". So I can't credit the argument above that a construction such as "Battleship North Carolina" couldn't be a title because no one calls it that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Parsec, Mary Rose is not an option according to the convention, common name or not; English carrack Mary Rose is the only permissible article name. For some reason you refuse to admit the same minimal and intuitive common sense naming standard for other ships. Don't you realize that ship articles have been forced into a naming scheme that doesn't fit them and that they never actually needed? We've been through this already: virtually all ship articles have names that are a product of an extremely old and inflexible convention. That's a complaint that's been raised here and has been around for several years already.

Dank, except you don't call it "battleship North Carolina" either, so the argument pretty much dies right there. And "<nationality>" is still just detail garnish. It's seems to me to be the product English-speaking ship aficionados inventing quasi-prefixes so that all articles can fit their own views on how ships should be named.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's one of the odder accusations I've seen, Peter. I'm sorry that our naming conventions don't match your personal views to a tee, but when we're the ones writing the articles, I think we are allowed to use our agreed-upon naming system that has worked for quite some time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to me that what we have here is two or three zealots intent on removing a system that has been in use for a long time and has and is serving us very well and replacing it with another system to suit their personal taste. Arguments against their proposed change are met with an enormous wall of words which generally ignore or distort the points made and simply repeat what basically boils down to a complaint of "I don't like it". None of the arguments presented have been compelling, they simply amount to a matter of taste. Given the size of the project, I see no advantage in making this change, just a lot of time and effort to make the change that would be better spent on actually improving articles and writing new ones. I re-iterate, the proposed change will make absolutely no difference to our readers, it is well and truly time for this whole subject to be dropped and for us all to get back to the actual purpose here of building the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, you give an excellent summary of the issue here, and state some of the same things I have said, but you did so much more clearly. I think we've ventured into WP:HORSEMEAT territory. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

100% agreed with Nick. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the best anyone can come up with by way of argument for keeping the present system, I think we can safely say it's time to change it. No-one is being forced to do any work here - those who want to spend their time doing other things are perfectly free to do so. But it remains a bizarre system that diverges from normal Wikipedia standards for no reason than (as we appeare to have now established) the personal tastes of a few people on the project, and those who are willing to put in the time to bring it into line with what readers expect and what won't mislead them ought to be free to do so. At least, no-one's arguing that making such a change would make things any worse.--Kotniski (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a basic point that you seem to want to ignore. The burden lies with he that wishes change to occur. We do not need to provide compelling reasons to maintain the status quo. Rather, those proposing change need to provide compelling reasons for the change. This you have abjectly failed to do. Demonising the current system by calling it "bizarre" or incorrectly stating that it does not follow Wikipedia's naming standard is at best childish, at worst deliberatly misleading. I assume you are not trying to mislead, so I guess it's just childish. Childish also is your continuous barrage of lengthy posts apparently trying to overwhelm everyone else - rather akin to when my children were young trying to nag me to give in to them. It didn't work for them, and it is not going to work for you here. Similarly ridiculous is your claim that the current system "misleads" readers. Oh, really? Please explain exactly how, for instance, the title of the article German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin misleads anyone - I would really like you to try. Like it or not, you have not been able to establish any sort of consensus that change needs to occur, let alone the nature of what that change might be. Take the hint that has been given to you several times already in this lengthy "debate" and drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur that no consensus has yet been presented to support any change. Haus^Talk 10:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're working on that. But when the opposistion starts resorting to personal abuse, I always know I've at least won the moral argument. I've already explained how these titles might mislead - if someone sees a title like German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, they may (not must) think that "German aircraft carrier" is a part (or translation of part) of the name. And if they're familiar with normal Wikipedia standards, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make, since they'd expect that if it were just a disambiguator, it would be coming after the title, probably in brackets. Again, does anyone have any arguments in support of the present system, to counter the arguments that have been given against it? If you don't think it matters what these articles are called, then you don't have to take part in the debate.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I always find that when the opposition starts claiming "personal abuse" when called for their behaviour I know that they are too wedded to their narrow point of view to be in any way objective about it. Frankly, unless you have something new to say, please just don't say anything. We've heard it all before. You present straw-man arguments, non-sequiturs and other nonsense and think you have won the day. I have a message for you - those of us interested in building this encyclopedia are tired of your never ending pushing of your favourite barrow. Please have the grace to accept that you have not achieved anything like a consensus to change the ship naming standard on this issue and just leave it at that. If you want to think you have won some sort of moral victory, I really don't care. Just leave it alone. Please. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We should be working for consensus here - that sort of outburst really doesn't help. There is no consensus for the present convention either - let's keep trying to find something everyone can accept. But it requires that everyone be open-minded and be prepared to defend their positions with arguments, not insults. Again, are there any arguments in favour of the present system rather than one with disambiguators after the names?--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been several made, but that's not the point. In any discussion on Wikipedia, if there is no consensus for the proposed change, the default is to return to the status quo. There is clearly no consensus for the change you and Peter want to institute, and it's becoming increasingly clear that we're at an impasse, so I suggest again that you drop the argument. Let's go do more constructive things with our time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd happily drop it if I could be at least halfway convinced that there was some reason behind the present system. Recent comments make it seem as if it survives simply because anyone daring to question it is driven away with personal attacks. "There is no consensus" is not in itself an argument - and it certainly isn't a reason to stop discussing.--Kotniski (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I and others have made several arguments in favor of the present system scattered across the mountain of text above; that you don't want to hear them isn't my problem. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see that you're being unpleasant in what you write? Anyway, I've repeated (some of) my arguments here for convenience - could you do the same? How would you summarize the reasons behind your position?--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see how frustrating it is to debate someone who refuses to discuss the points I and others bring up? You argue that the nationality+type dab is a construct to enforce uniformity with ships with prefixes. I dig through the archives to find the original discussions, and prefixes aren't even mentioned. Do you address that? No. You ignore it, move on to something else, and continue with the red herring. I have pointed out repeatedly that you're trying to switch one arcane naming policy for another, equally arcane policy, with absolutely zero net benefit. Yet you haven't addressed that either. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've repeatedly pointed out what the net benefit is. Well the gross benefit, anyway; we're still waiting for anyone to say what the cost might be to offset it. The other thing you say I haven't addressed is a historical side issue. But in line with the comments below, I'm quite happy to leave this matter for now, to allow tempers to cool and other things to be addressed.--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

this is jsut a thought, but given we have been tackling this for nearly 4 weeks without resolution, perhaps a break in proceedings is justified. Not that a side has won or lost the argument(s) but that returning to the subject afresh later might be more profitable - ie the discussions are temporarily in abeyance. That said, we do seem to have some concensus developing on two elements: the retrospective application of HMS etc, and the use of hyphen in the class name. Would it be more constructive for these two to be finalised and put to bed before returning to the thorny issue of disambiguation? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, should focus on the areas where consensus is possible. Ive no problem with the proposal to end backdating of HMS, provided a suitable cut off period is selected and we are not just guessing / picking a year out of a hat. But i still strongly oppose the suggestion that we stop using Hull classifications/Pennant numbers in ship article titles. They are better than years. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think there's any objection to using hyphens in the class names - the main problem is fixing {{sclass}} and the automatic italics in the title feature. I raised a point that got missed above, which was the usage of prefixes for ships that weren't commissioned and thus never actually carried them (i.e., USS Illinois (BB-65)). While not quite the same as backdating, it's closely related, and whatever we decide on the former should impact the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am probably not alone in wondering what change is being proposed, and why any change at all is needed?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• I can see merit in allowing hyphens in names where the original has a hyphen in it. The steam two and three deckers of the 1850s were called line-of-battle ships, so an obvious class name would be for example Bulwark class line-of-battle ship or if you prefer Bulwark-class line-of-battle ship.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we shift discussion of hyphens to the section below please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal not to backdate prefixes

Going by the request above " on one small thing as a first step - to stop backdating " here is the proposal. Which I am keeping separate from what to use instead to keep it simple.

Ship prefixes (such as HMS, USS etc) are not applied to ships that predate their use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I've said several times, I definitely support this.--Kotniski (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm very happy with this step, particularly for pre-1660 (English/British warships), I'd like us to agree on which is the date that we're using for "ships that predate their use" (i.e. use of the prefix HMS or whichever it is), as the introduction of the prefix did not take place on a specific date but evolved through custom and practice. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of RN ships, what would you suggest? I've seen 1780 or thereabouts mentioned in a couple of places I think, but the thereabouts part is the problem as you say. Do we go by first recorded usage? That still seems like back-dating to me... or the first official reference to a ship with the prefix? What date would that be - mid-19th century? Or do we take a somewhat arbitrary decision on a date, based on when we think it was in sufficiently common usage to be reasonable (although it could be successfully argued that that is back-dating as well). I definitely think it is a good idea to take this step. Martocticvs (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some Google Books searches for pre-1780s ships with or without HMS that are probably useful in the discussion. Numbers in parentheses are number of hits:

• HMS Royal Oak (1769):
  • "HMS royal oak" +"74-gun" (15)
  • "royal oak" +"74-gun" (234)
• HMS Ajax (1767):
  • "HMS ajax" +"74-gun" (29)
  • "ajax" +"74-gun" (445)
• HMS Bellona (1760):
  • "HMS bellona" +"74-gun" (24)
  • "bellona" +"74-gun" (546)
• HMS Dreadnought (1742):
  • "HMS dreadnought " +"60-gun" (4)
  • "dreadnought " +"60-gun" (160)
• HMS Leopard (1703):
  • "HMS leopard" +"50-gun" (58)
  • "leopard" +"50-gun" (584)
• HMS Sovereign of the Seas (launched 1637):
  • "HMS Sovereign of the Seas" +"1637" (16)
  • "Sovereign of the Seas" +"1637" +navy (1,320)
• HMS Antelope:
  • "HMS Antelope" +"1546" (2)
  • "Antelope" +"1546" +navy (58)

Peter ^Isotalo 09:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully support. As for which year to use as the cut off, clearly somewhere between 1660 and 1780 - but when exactly? Shem (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least on this point we seem to have agreement in principle. I'm going to update the guideline accordingly (with the possibility of making the rule more specific if a criterion can be agreed).--Kotniski (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone enlighten me on this; I've been reading the articles on the two "HMS" Royal Charles's, and it is continually stated there that the ships were named and renamed HMS this and HMS that. Are the articles lying, or do the HMS prefixes actually go back a lot further than has been claimed here?--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is the fact that the Royal Navy itself sometimes backdates prefixes, and some noted authors have as well. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The renaming of the first Royal Charles appears to have more to do with the return of the monarchy rather than the prefix itself. The point is that it got back a name that wasn't so obviously Republican. The other Royal Charles seems merely to have changed names a lot. Those who wrote these articles either assumed that "HMS" should always be backdated or used a source that did it.

I found a comment by the Royal Naval Museum through the article on HMS Bounty, which can be read here. They date the first use of the abbreviation "HMS" to 1789. Before that it was written out in full to signify military vessels. This would be a simplification of what Rif explained about a gradual change, but I leave it up to him to correct me. However, going by what the RNM says, 1789 could be a highly appropriate cut-off date. And when you think about it, it just happens to coincide with the French Revolution, the most commonly cited delineation between early modern and modern periods.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I must say that as far as the text of articles is concerned, I think great caution should be applied in using any prefixes which are suspected of being backdated, since as a reader I feel I am being misled if I'm told that a ship "was renamed HMS Something", when in fact it was renamed "Something" and perhaps some later authors have added the prefix retrospectively. I would have thought that if in doubt, omit the prefix (or add an explanatory note). As far as titles are concerned, unfortunately it might not be possible to split this issue from the "German battleship" issue as had been hoped, since if we want to rename an article on a backdated HMS ship, the current convention would tell us to add something like "English ship" before the title, and we don't want to be doing that if we're only going to decide later that these prefixes/disambiguators are inappropriate (in other words we don't want to move the same set of articles twice).--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the question of what to rename an article to remains, but we are establishing consensus on what the article shouldn't be titled. I appreciate we may come out of this step of the process with only half an answer and a situation where we know some articles need to be renamed but not yet what to. And the same could be said for the hyphen issue, but I trust that it is consensus in part that is being reached. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I started the Royal Charles article... I think I used HMS because that was the way things were being done at the time (ie backdating the prefixes). I kept it going through the article out of habit probably, so I guess in a way the article is lying, currently. Besides which, HMS isn't part of any ship's name (except for HMS Surprise, officially), but just a prefix, so technically a ship would never be renamed to HMS this or HMS that, just this or that with HMS in front of it. But anyway, 1789 sounds like a reasonable cut-off point, with it being supported by the RN museum (just so long as we remember that in reality there was no sudden change, where relevant). It's tie-in with the Revolution is also fairly convenient. If we applied this according to the current system we have, then HMS Royal Charles (1655) would become English ship Royal Charles (1655) (or should that really be English ship Naseby (1655), as she was not called Royal Charles in 1655, which is what the title suggests); HMS Royal Charles (1673) would become British ship Royal Charles (1673). Is that an additional issue? Ships renamed later in their careers that have articles carrying that later name in their title together with the original launch date give the false impression that a ship of that name existed at the date of launch. Worse, a ship may actually have existed with that name at that time, but not that one! Not that I want to muddy the issue any further, of course... Martocticvs (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For your given example - assuming that you were to have the article at Royal Charles (1655) (and I say assuming because I'm trying to keep this example simplish and it saves on typing) meaning the article on the ship known as Royal Charles that was built (or launched) in 1655, then a redirect would also be created at Naseby (1655) and/or Naseby (warship) etc (or to take the current system -English ship Naseby).GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interestingly, it appears that four of the five other wikilanguage projects follow the same HMS Royal Charles convention we have used. The exception is the Japanese wikipedia, which names the ship "Nasby (ship of the line)". To the best of my understanding, English ship Royal Charles (1655) would be the most correct title, as the guideline advises us to title the ship under "the best-known name" and 1655 is the ship's correct launch date (even if that launch was under a different government and ship name). — Kralizec! (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a bit dubious about looking to how other language wikis have handled this, since I know several of them have just copied and translated the English wiki's articles. Correction to my second example, that would be English ship Royal Charles (1673), since she had already had a name change by the time of the Acts of Union. I think I created redirects at the time to cover those other possibilities. Looks like there's also a Commonwealth ship Naseby (redirect) in existence. What about the cut-off date, then... say we go with 1789: how do we apply that? For a ship launched in or after 1789, no problem - we title the article HMS Ship (xxxx); for a ship sold/wrecked/broken up/etc before 1789, also quite clear, English/British (war?)ship Example (xxxx); but what about the straddlers? I think as long as a ship was in active service after that date, the prefix should be applied, otherwise there might be a few issues cropping up (someone might decide to follow the guidelines to the letter and argue that HMS Victory should become British ship Victory, for example). Martocticvs (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In general I support the idea of not backdating "HMS" type prefixes, except where such a usage is in common use. For example Cook's ship is usually known as HMS Endeavour even though it was technically HM Barque Endeavour. However such ships are the exception. As for what title to use for articles on ships where we do not back date the prefix, we should then follow the ships naming standard as for modern warships that do not have prefixes. BTW, we should not use "British" to identify English ships prior to the Act of Union. Finally, I am not too sure about using the word "Ship" in most cases. Following the naming stamdard, we should use the type descriptor appropriate for the vessel in question, whatever that may be. "Ship" is applicable for only a subset of all naval vessels in earlier times, but even if it is decided to continue to use "Ship" generally, I suggest it would be better to use the term "warship" so as not to confuse between them and civilian ships. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Like Kotniski and Graeme said above, I don't wish to separate this issue from the more extensive naming format discussed above. It would just provoke an increased in complicated and ill-suited article names like English galleon Antelope (1546) (never mind the problem of figuring out whether it was a galleass or not). I'd much rather have it with an "HMS"-prefixed article name.

The only other alternative I can think of would be if WP:SHIP accepted differing naming standards for modern and pre-modern vessels, if only as an interim solution. But I doubt anyone is interested in that, even if almost all who have commented here seem extremely focused on modern history.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to settle this issue in the RfC below.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)