Talk:RFA Proteus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RFA Proteus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Started article edit
The story of the Proteus' procurement is starting to gain traction and as such I think it's worth starting the page. I have created the stub, populated some information in the infobox, and provided some references for that information. However the article needs to be expanded quite a lot. I aim to add more in the coming days, but would be grateful for any updates from other users too. Go wild :) Xtrememachineuk (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Article title - including Pennant Number edit
I have reverted this page back to that which includes the pennant number (K60) in the title. All other articles relating to RFA ships do this, even for ships with no previous uses of the name. There are also templates that require the specific pennant number to be included to link to the correct article. I'm happy to discuss, but to keep the page aligned with all other RFA ships I've reverted it back and undone the move. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just by way of example, RFA Tiderace (A137) also has the pennant number, and there has been no previous RFA Tiderace in service. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:NC-SHIPS or WP:DISAMBIGUATION. A ship that is the only ship of that name, in this case, the only ship in RFA service to be named Proteus, does not need its pennant number as a dismabiguator. Pennant numbers are interchangeable and mean nothing other than as an identifier. You could have put the ship's call sign as the disambiguator for all the information it provides. You should not have moved the page back before opening the discussion. This has been discussed elsewhere at length and it was on you to find those discussions. I will now move the page back to its correct location. Please see Talk:USNS Earl Warren#Requested move 26 March 2023 to see how these discussion usually go. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a good argument in any discussion. Llammakey (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)