Talk:HMS James (1634)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved, pending further discussion. Although there appears to be some consensus to move this title, there was clear no consensus around what to move it to. Suggest editors interested in this, first reach a consensus decision on an alternative title and conduct another RM if necessary (this title can be moved without Admin assistance if consensus is reached Mike Cline (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

---

HMS James (1634) → English ship James (1634) –

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships - "The term "His Majesty's Ship" was introduced around 1660 and was routinely abbreviated HMS from about 1780 onwards." relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 88.111.6.83 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment this ship was still in service in 1660. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment should we instead divide usage by pre-Royal Navy and Royal Navy English naval ships? Then from Henry VIII onwards it would be HMS... (or HBMS... as American sources would refer to ships from 1770's-1920's) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I regard this nomination as excessively pedantic. The present name is satisfactory, and only those exceptionally knowledgeable would know that it was strictly incorrect. It was built as a king's warship, and was thus part of the Royal Navy. If we do need to change it, the target should be James (1634 Royal Navy ship), but as I say, the presentform will do well. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no need to rename the article, as it complies with the agreed ship article naming conventions. If you were to be either pedantic or accurate about it, the title should be either English ship James (1634) or HMS Old James (1634), the first of which is the most accurate. But as it stands is perfectly acceptable for the way the articles are named. Martocticvs (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question - How do reliable sources refer to this ship? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see she's referred to as just JAMES 48-gun ship in Colledge. Why don't we just do that too? James (48-gun ship). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Because that isn't how ship articles are named on wikipedia. Obtaining consensus on this subject is difficult; there is consensus for the current form, and there is no reason to move away from it, and many reasons to stay with it. Martocticvs (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I brought the article to requested moves in the first place, so let me explain why I think it should be moved:

1. According to the appropriate guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships the abbreviation "HMS" was only routinely used from 1780, so this ship was never called HMS Old James or HMS James. (The full text says: 'Similarly, do not use prefixes that predate their use, even though some authors sometimes "backdate" prefixes in this way. In particular, do not use the HMS prefix for English ships from before 1660. The term "His Majesty's Ship" was introduced around 1660 and was routinely abbreviated HMS from about 1780 onwards.')
2. Even if you wish to use HMS as a modern abbreviation for "Her Majesty's Ship" from 1660, then the article should be HMS Old James (although I would find that an odd choice of article name).
3. The ship was named James from 1634 until 1660, which coincided with the English Civil War, the Commonwealth of England and the Protectorate. While I have no idea exactly what the James got up to during the Civil War, the navy as a whole was largely pro-parliament, so to present the ship as "HMS" James is entirely misleading. In all likelihood (and from 1649 to 1660 in complete certainty) the ship was very much not His Majesty's - in fact, entirely the opposite.
4. The sources show James (I have a copy of Colledge on my shelf, and that's pretty authoritative).
5. This is not therefore a matter of pedantry or needless renaming, but very much a matter of historical accuracy. No historian of any standing would defend this naming for a moment, and Wikipedia should not be actively misleading its readers - especially since so far as I can tell, Wikipedia's own guidelines say this should be at English ship James.

88.111.6.83 (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• No objection to English ship James; it is more accurate and follows the consensus on article naming. Martocticvs (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest -- James (English ship) or James (RN ship). Having (probably correctly) rejected "HMS" we are left with the name of "James" for her, which clearly requires a diambiguator, hence my suggestions. I note that my early suggesdtion of James (1634 Royal Navy ship) has nnot been accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Why use English ship James? You use Mary Rose, not English ship Mary Rose. Peter's suggestions are reasonable, but James (launched 1634) would also do. Subnumine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subnumine (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. There are well established naming conventions at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships. English ship James meets these guidelines (and so does Mary Rose), while James (launched 1634), James (English ship), James (RN ship) and HMS James (1634) do not. Looking at HMS James, it appears there were other pre-1660 ships of the English Navy called James - so the article should really be at English ship James (1634) to save a future move. Of course, if you want to argue the toss about ship naming guidelines, this is the wrong place, but it has been argued before, unsuccessfully, that James (ship, 1634) would be a more suitable style for all ships! 85.210.71.163 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name is precise and unambiguous. The proposed name is simply silly and runs against the convention for ships' names here on WP and elsewhere. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

? How can you say the proposed name runs against the convention? Have you read the convention? Bizarre. 88.111.6.83 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.