Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merchant Ship Prefixes

As a newcomer to this - and recognising that the convention itself has a huge subjective element "If a ship is best known...." - there seems to be an enormous proliferation of "MS" everywhere now. Sometimes in titles, sometimes in text, and often with no consistency. Take a number of cruise ships at random:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_Ruby - no MS in title, MS (bold) consistently in intro, but inconsistently in article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Bleu_de_France - MS in title, MS (bold) almost consistently in intro (one non-bold Bleu de France), but not used in article at all.

I find it impossible to believe that Bleu de France is best known with an "MS", especially as it is geared to a French-speaking market. Nor is Saga Ruby best known as MS. Perhaps the naming convention should state that the norm is to exclude such prefixes, but exceptionally to allow them where in wider general usage (eg with Titanic or Queen Elizabeth). And in any case surely the style "she was renamed MS Caronia" is just plain wrong (British registration regulations specifically forbid naming a ship "MS Something"). Davidships (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on naming

It seems we won't be able to implement (in article titles, at least) the decision to stop using backdated prefixes (see above) until we have a decision on what to use instead - i.e. whether to continue to prefix all military ship names with "(Nationality) (type)" or to use normal Wikipedia disambiguation instead (as for civilian ships). And since there seems to be no prospect of agreement among contributors to this page, the matter would need to be settled by bringing in a wider range of voices. I therefore propose the following RfC (not sure which is the most relevant RfC category): {{rfctag|hist|style|policy}} How should articles about military ships be titled, if there is no prefix (such as "HMS")? Should the current pattern be followed, where the nationality and ship type are prefixed to the title, as in German battleship Bismarck? Or should parenthetical disambiguators be used, as is done for civilian ships and for Wikipedia articles generally - Bismarck (battleship)?--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How about

"How should articles about military ships be titled, if there is no prefix (such as "HMS")?

Currently the nationality and ship type are prefixed to the title, as in German battleship Bismarck.

Should disambiguators be included parenthetically instead, eg Bismarck (battleship), as is the general case/usage for Wikipedia?

This reduces it down to single question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, feel free to tweak.--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do we really want to go down this path again? This is the same question that has been beaten to death without resolution in countless posts above. I suggest a better question that will not revive the endless debate would be: Should we stop using anachronistic prefixes such as "HMS" for ships that did not actually bear them when in service? Obviously, if we agree to this then the existing conventions for ship naming come into play, there is no need to consider this class of vessels with special rules. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We already have a general agreement on not backdating, but we do not want to move, then have to move again if the disambiguation practice changes shortly after.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support keeping titles as-is, but with redirects from the alternatives. (And from "commonly used" prefixies that don't necessarily apply, i.e. KM Bismarck, as well). Now, if we were to do something like Bismarck (German battleship), that might be something I could handle. But just Bismarck (battleship), to me, looks downright 'simple' (for want of a better term) to the point of almost being childish. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The format "<title> (<topic type>)" without unnecessary adjectives is the near-universal disambiguation method on Wikipedia. Simplicity (in the sense of "brevity over complexity") is even recommended in WP:NAME. It's difficult to see how any of this can be "almost childish". Peter ^Isotalo 11:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support ending the practise of back-dating prefixes. I don't think there is any particular need to reach an agreement on the other aspects of naming, at least insofar as I don't think that it is necessary for a change to be agreed. If it becomes clear that there is no consensus in support of any further change than to the back-dating of prefixes, which seems to have been fairly well agreed in principle, then the affected articles would just need to be renamed in accordance with the current naming practises. If this means that in a year or two down the line things change and a new round of renaming is agreed, then so be it. Really, they are two distinct issues: one is a matter of accuracy, whereas the other is a matter of syntax. If it looked to me like there was a chance of some agreement for change on the latter front, I would suggest we hold off implementing a renaming of back-dated prefix articles, but as that isn't the case, I don't see much reason to linger over it. Martocticvs (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• As a note, I do Support not back-dating prefixes, or using 'non-standard' ('KM', etc.) prefixes in main article names. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing the rfc tag for now, since this seems to have gone down the wrong road. The question is not about backdating prefixes - we seem to have agreed about that (if anyone objects to the new thinking, they can do so in an appropriate section) - but if we are going to stop backdating, then we have a lot of articles to rename, and we want to know what the general view is about how to rename them - should we rename them to titles like "English ship XXX"? or to titles like "XXX (ship)"? That's the question that remains to be settled, and the one that people on this project can't seem to reach consensus on, and therefore needs outside views via an RfC.--Kotniski (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• if the question is not about backdating prefixes, then it seems to me that what is being proposed is an attempt to win the previous argument about the ship naming standard by stealth. How is naming earlier warship articles any different from naming modern ones? If the question is not about the backdating of prefixes than I am in total opposition to any change until and unless a clear consensus is achieved on the question, without resorting to subterfuge to get one particular POV in through the back door. This question is framed in the context of ships with anachronistic prefixes, but as soon as you remove those prefixes, then all you have left is the main part of the naming standard. Are you suggesting that we create a special rule that only applies to ships that previously had a back dated prefix? Surely not. The only question on which there seems to be a reasonable prospect of consensus it to agree to stop backdating prefixes. If as I assume, we are likely to reach agreement on that point, then we simply apply the normal naming standard, anything else and you have a fight on your hands. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I've made clear, we need to settle the question of whether the current naming standard should be changed - I really would ask you to stop using aggressive language whenever that topic is raised; it's a perfectly normal matter of disagreement which can be resolved by rational argument and normal RfC procedures.--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So can we at least start by agreeing on a question to ask or set of alternatives to offer? (without trying to answer any questions at this stage). It is suggested above that the form Bismarck (German battleship) might be a third alternative to be offered alongside German battleship Bismarck and Bismarck (battleship) - does anyone have any more?--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We can always list Bismarck (German battleship) as an alternative, but I don't see why anyone would support it. It's been agreed upon long ago that "<nationality>" isn't actually required for disambiguation for any ship article. All support comes down to keeping it for the sake of consistency and/or upholding WP:SHIP naming tradition. Any alternative that would include "<nationality>" would likely be something more complicated or contrived.

Btw, is there any possibility to include a "don't disambiguate unless necessary"-clause in all of this?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if one of the options is to do the same as for civilian ships (as was proposed), then that would entail not disambiguating more than necessary (although we aren't discussing prefixed ships here, so they would continue to carry their hull numbers etc.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to stop backdating prefixes, then we need something simple, and that avoids the user needing to know Wiki-isms - so what about English ship Revenge (1577) instead of HMS Revenge (1577)?

I know some people will say that it would be better to have the ship type instead of ship, but that gets us into all kinds of classification problems/original research/wiki-isms. Article titles should be easy to guess. In the past ship-type names changed over time, and are not necessarily obvious to people who just want to look up something.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

English ship Revenge (1577) would be acceptable from my point of view. Warship would be a better word to use, since she wasn't a ship, but a galleon... English warship Revenge (1577). Whichever way, that would be following the existing naming convention so it clearly works fine. As for alternative methods, Revenge (1577) is obviously the most basic way. Martocticvs (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit too basic, I think - no-one will know it refers to a ship. "English (war)ship Revenge (1577)" is what the convention would currently suggest, but the problems with that convention have been set out at length. The normal Wikipedia way, I think, and the way that would be used according to the convention if it was a civilian ship (why does there have to be a difference?) would be Revenge (1577 ship), or for accuracy, Revenge (1577 warship). --Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The convention for civilian ships seems to make entire sense - so why do we do something different for warships? To my mind it seems clear that Revenge (1577 ship) is ideal in every respect. Shem (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Warship is still a better term, for reasons already mentioned. I have no objections to the general format you propose, however. Martocticvs (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that (especially in the period of Revenge) ships often change to warships and back again to merchant use. Shem (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And "warship" isn't exactly a ship type either. Compare with WP:NCF (WP:FILM's convention). They are often faced with naming situations that are almost identical to that of WP:SHIP, and their standard solution is simply "Name (<year> film)". A tad too obvious for the regulars, but very helpful to everyone else. It provides just the right amount of extra disambiguation info with an absolute minimum of added length to the title.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not taken part in this debate, but before any decision is made I wish to throw a rock into the soup. A need for disambiguation is not confined to Wikipedia. In particular, in the American Civil War, several names were applied to ships on both sides: Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee. To distinguish them, the US government applied the unofficial prefixes USS, CSS; thus, USS Alabama,, CSS Alabama, etc. (I have always been sorry that it was USS Kearsarge rather than USS Alabama that engaged CSS Alabama in the battle of Cherbourg. Think of how that would mess up the minds of the non-natives.) Anyway, the USS/CSS usage has become pretty well accepted outside of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we have to do the same, but doing otherwise might make our articles a little less accessible. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't really change the use of 19th century prefixes, including CSS. And if I'm not mistaken, Confederate warship articles already use this prefix quite consistently.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that the prefix CSS is used for articles on Confederate ships, but that label was applied by the Federal government and not, so far as I know, by the Confederates themselves. The point I want to make is that both CSS and USS were unofficial, the latter becoming official only in the early 20th century, and the former obviously never. They were used unofficially, of course, long before that time. I mention this only to warn against an overly pedantic naming policy; if we insist that the prefix must be legally established before we can use it in Wikipedia, we will create a lot of confusion in at least our Civil War articles, and maybe elsewhere. PKKloeppel (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Remember WP:COMMONNAME, folks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought part of this proposal was to remove prefixes from ships that never actually had those prefixes. If we are taking the "HMS" out of the HMS Enterprise (1705) article because ships of that era were not prefixed with HMS, then why would we leave "CSS" in CSS Alabama if the ship never actually had that prefix? The use of "CSS" on warships sounds like another example of the "prefix backdating" I thought we were trying to get away from. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And as I said right above there, WP:COMMONNAME would apply. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME directs us to observe what various sources use. Presumably since none of the Confederate ships in question were ever actually named with a "CSS" prefix, then some sources will use the made-up (but very informative and consistent) CSS prefix, and others will not. Unfortunately this could well mean that more famous ships get named with a CSS prefix (such as the CSS Virginia article), and others get renamed (such as CSS Charleston being renamed Charleston (1863) or Charleston (Confederate ironclad)). I could also see the same thing happen with WWII Japanese ships, where Japanese battleship Musashi is renamed Musashi (1940) or Musashi (battleship), but the more famous Japanese battleship Yamato is renamed IJN Yamato. Is it just me, or does this sound like a confusing, inconsistent mess? — Kralizec! (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, therefore a rather simple solution is at hand: Civil War ships get named with 'USS' or 'CSS', due to popular useage and (in many cases) disambiguation, as a policy exception to "no made-up ship prefixes". - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if this discussion has been declared dead yet, but I don't see a problem with using CSS other than from an extremely strict historiographic perspective: it's a prefix that is extremely common today and it belongs to an era where prefixes were firmly established. Seems like a very good example of a prominent practical exception that should have little influence on the use of the strongly anachronistic "HMS" before the late 18th century.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, prefixes were not firmly established until the executive order issued by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (58 years after the end of the American Civil War). That is exactly why we have disputes over the names of other American ships of the same century, such as Niagara. Those advocating a standardized name, prefer USS Niagara (1813), while those wanting the most historically correct name prefer the two names used by the USN of that era: Flagship Niagara and US Brig Niagara. While I personally prefer to see us use a standardized, consistent naming convention, I fully recognize that applying the "CSS" prefix to Confederate ships is as 'made up' as applying the "HMS" prefix to ships prior to 1789. Both are products of modern historians, and were never used to describe these ships back in their own eras. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The same discussion

I missed this discussion so far and started the same discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and Commons_talk:Naming_categories I'copy the discussions here. First question: What is the best place for this discussion, as discussing on different places results in confusion only. I try to reach international standardisation for shipnames, as far as possible. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First the discussion on Commons_talk:Naming_categories:

Ship naming conventions/policy

A discussion on my OP started with:

Hi, at Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects we are building a mapping between a library's subject headings and our categories. For ships, we have used '<ship> (ship)'. I see Category:Cooma (ship) has been deleted as a duplicate of your Category:Cooma (ship, 1907). Should all ships be disambiguated by the year? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My answer was: My intention was to do so, because a lot of ships have the same name. I categorised more than 3000 ships by name on Commons myself and found out that some ships were numbered without any system. On the Dutch version of Wikipedia we have the Rotterdam (IV), Rotterdam (V) and Rotterdam (VI). Examples on Commons:

• commons:Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1908)
• commons:Category:SS Rotterdam, according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1959)
• commons:Category:Rotterdam (1969), according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1969)
• commons:Category:MS Rotterdam, according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1997)

That is the reason why I categorise every newly found ship in a category according this system. (I started this only a few weeks ago). I wondered how to make this a naming convention, no idea. But I found it so logical, that people will follow it automatically. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

and it came back with:

It seems sensible to do this, but I also have no idea about naming conventions on Commons. I've raised this at Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland/Subjects#ships. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So I assume it is good to start a discussion on this, as it can clarify how to succeed. See in this case how the inland passenger ship, completed in 1969, without any problem can be categorised by name, no conflict with naming the sea-going ships. Perhaps it solves the problem with MS and SS in the name of ships too. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if we could loose the MS/SS as it seems to confuse a lot of people who think it is part of the name. BoH (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the proposal of Stunteltje. Maybe you can update the very old Commons:Category scheme ships accordingly and make a link to it in the top level ship/boat categories. --Foroa (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree also, I have had this same confusion on the dutch Wikipedia as lots of media use M/S and S/S. The danish Wikipedia does that as well, by using M/F and H/F etc. By making a consensus on commons, it would be easier to draw the line further to the wikipedia's in other languages.

By making it like [[name (ship,19..)]] will be easy to understand for everyone. Perhaps that this also can be done in other categories (Cars, Trucks, etc.).--Rodejong (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to this, given the multiple languages on the Commons. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 08:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I support the general idea. It's much easier if one can just type the name of the ship and needn't guess prefixes.
The QLD upload might be a bit different as there are hundreds of ships we currently only know the names of. For these, we might have to add the year at a second step. --  Docu  at 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in the German Wikipedia [1], there has long been a consensus that the many prefixes (SS, DS, MS, MV) are not part of ship's name. They are left out and used the ship's name with parenthesis additions to year and / or launching. This is especially true for civilian ships. In the military area, there are special rules. -- Biberbaer (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be pleased to see, that Commons standardise all the uncontrolled growth and rename all to the system "Category:Shipname (ship, year)". But what will be done with the data content within the renamed categories? Should all the pictures also be renamed? That sounds like a lot of work to do.--Manuel Heinemann (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion prefixes are just a pain in ... even in english it is not clear, if a SS is a Steamship or Sailingship, not to mention national abreviations or even by the ship-owner invented prefixes. Some might have sense like RMS for example, but anyway, all double, triple or whatsoever many names need a disambiguation-page. Prefering the shipsname (ship, year), in seldom cases the shipsname (ship, yearfrom-yearto)-solution --CeGe (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Ships naming on Commons

A lot of ships have the same name. I categorised more than 3000 ships by name on Commons myself and found out that some ships were even numbered, without any system. On the Dutch version of Wikipedia we have the Rotterdam (IV), Rotterdam (V) and the Rotterdam (VI). That is the reason why I started to categorise every newly found ship on Commons in a category according a new scheme: [[Category:"Shipname" (ship, "year of completion")]]. The first one:

• commons:Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1908)

and to be renamed in this system:

• commons:Category:SS Rotterdam, according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1959)
• commons:Category:Rotterdam (1969), according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1969)
• commons:Category:MS Rotterdam, according my preference: Category:Rotterdam (ship, 1997)

I wondered how to make this a naming convention, no idea. But I found it so logical, that people will follow it automatically. Naming ships this way, it solves another problem too. We write SteamShip and MotorShip in different languages. M/S and S/S, MS and SS, in Danish e.g. M/F and H/F. So I started a discussion on naming of ships on Commons, as it can clarify how to proceed. See in this case how the inland passenger ship, completed in 1969, without any problem can be categorised by name, no conflict with naming the sea-going ships.

For a very few categories we can make an exception, like

• [[Category:"Shipname" (tugboat, "year of completion")]].
• [[Category:"Shipname" (barge, "year of completion")]].

My question is: please add your comment on /Commons_talk:Naming_categories --Stunteltje (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

=== MV/MS prefixes for merchant ships === (also on WikiProject Ships)

I've been having a look at expanding and tidying some of the P&O Cruises ship articles and I'm a bit unsure about prefixes.

In common use (conversation, advertising, etc...), few merchant ships have an "MV" or "MS" prefix. On official documentation, the prefix may or may not be used, and where it is, the usage may not be consistent. For example, P&O Cruises make a small reference on their website to the MS prefix. This is in the context of "Send mail to [Crewmember Name], MS [Ship Name], c/o P&O Cruises...). However, the various ships' stamps, as used on official documents such as discharge books, use the MV prefix.

Currently, a number of P&O Cruises ship articles use MS and a number use MV.

In the interests of keeping things tidy, does anybody have any opinios as to how to rectify this? Is the prefix even neccesary? Wexcan  Talk  15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained at ship prefix MS and MV (also M/S, M/V) are interchangeable. It appears that on en-Wiki that the choice of MS or MV is down to the article creator. M/S and M/V are deprecated for technical reasons - it makes all such articles subpages of the M article. The prefix is necessary, as ship names get re-used, and SS Foo may well be a different ship to MV Foo. It seems to me that we have two choices here, either continue with the status quo, or make it part of WP:MOSSHIP that all these articles are either titled MS Foo or MV Foo, my preference would be for the latter. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the preference for MV over MS, simply because MV is the more common prefix. The issue is very much one of consistency, a quick look at Template:P&O Cruises Ships demonstrates the lack of consistency which may cause confusion. I think I shall standardise the P&O Cruises ships with MV and see how that goes. If there are no objections, great. If it causes issues, it could pormpt an interesting discussion. Wexcan  Talk  15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a historical aspect here: we had a very prodigious editor of passenger-ship/ferry articles who was Finnish, and my understanding was that M/S is more common in northern Europe. I think that explains a lot of the "why", but whether we should change it is another question. I have a niggling sense that ENGVAR might apply to the question somehow. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult question since there can be conflicting official sources. A ship's stamp may use MV while other official documents may use MS. My main aim here is consistency, at least within a company's fleet. In the aforementioned template, I have removed the prefixes to align with common usage and the similar template for Princess Cruises. I have also changed the individual article titles to MV based on my experience with that company (apart from Azura which appears to have move protection. As long as the company's fleet is consistent, I'm happy. Wexcan  Talk  18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I move protected Azura following a request to move it from MV to MS. I've no objection to it being moved back, but this really needs to be accomplished via WP:RM, as it cannot be seen as an uncontentious move. If consensus can be gained for the move back to MV, then I'd be happy to facilitate the move. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an issue in this Commons talk:Naming categories discussion too. Best solition: No prefixes at all, just year of completion gives a better result in finding a ship. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought that too. Cruise ships and ferries are rarely known with a prefix, nor are many merchant ships apart from, say PS Waverley and SS Shieldhall and some historical ships. The issue wth using just name and year is that it's difficult to identify it as a ship. At the same time, you can't just add (ship) since there may be many of the same name. Wexcan  Talk  23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is "shipname" (ship, "year of completion"), without any prefixes. That is the suggestion on Commons and the Dutch Wikipedia too. We have the same discussion there at this moment. So standardisation is possible. Even easyer would be a small symbol for "ship" in the name, that would make a real standardisation possible. No ship, schip, schiff, and so on any more. Only problem: No key on the keyboard for this. :=)) --Stunteltje (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So far the discussions on other platforms. Where to centralise the discussion?. Splitting in two for naval and merchant ships? --Stunteltje (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

After trying to stimulate a discussion on this without success a couple of months ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)/Archive_4, so glad it's being aired now. I am strongly in favour of excluding the systematic use of these prefixes - they are not part of the name of the ship, are of little of use in identifying a specific ship, are widely used wrongly, and may even change during a ship's life (eg re-engining). Our German and Dutch friends seem to have got it right. The few instances where such prefixes are in genuinely common use canbe dealt with by redirects. Davidships (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement with Davidships and Stunteltje - end the use of prefixes entirely and put the disambiguation after the ship name. Shem (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS prefix in old English warships

The Royal Navy says: "The term His or Her Majestie's Ship (HMS) only entered usage around 1660 under King Charles II's reign. Prior to then the term King's or Queen's Ship was used instead." [2] Our normal rule is only to use a prefix when it is the practice of the navy concerned, and we follow this with the more famous ancient English ships e.g. Mary Rose. I think we should update the guideline to reflect this. Any comments before I do so? The Land (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of dropping the anachronistic HMS prefix from these ships. We actually reached a consensus on this point in the wider ship article naming debate from last year, but it was never actioned, sadly. We settled on 1789 as the date when HMS can be said to have come in to use, so any ship launched in or after that year, or still in service in that year, can retain the prefix, and any others should be renamed appropriately (English ship XXXXX (yyyy), Commonwealth ship XXXXX (yyyy), British ship XXXX (yyyy)). Martocticvs (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Commonwealth ship" would be a very bad phrase to use. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Which brings us right back to where the consensus failed last time - what to call them when renamed. Oh for Naseby (1665 ship)! Shem (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just avoid the problem, redo all the other ships, but leave those that might be called "Commonwealth" ships alone for now. Bring it up as a separate section to deal with it separately without having that issue block the other ones. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

English ship Naseby or English ship Naseby (1665) would be my reading of the guideline. (though worth pointing out that that particular ship is fairly well accomodated at HMS Royal Charles...) .... The Land (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the Royal Navy says that HMS entered usage around 1660, it would seem sensible to use it for ships in service in 1660 and after; not just ships from 1789, which seems to have been members' OR.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And this is an issue discussed over and over again. While your proposal would be militarily correct you forget that WP isn't the military. Many military people come around saying that WP is wrong because we don't put USS ship names in all caps (imagine doing that here). The large majority of WP readers aren't military historians who understand all of the ins and outs like we do. There needs to be a dumbed down standard that the average reader (and editor) can understand and follow. To do otherwise is needlessly complicating. Brad (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopaedia, so it has a duty to be factually correct - before 1660 absolutely 'HMS' or 'His Majesty's Ship' simply wasn't used. After 1660, 'His Majesty's Ship' was, but the contraction of that to the prefix 'HMS' simply doesn't appear until the 1780s, as Rif Winfield pointed out in an earlier discussion (hence the 1789 cut-off). Removing 'Commonwealth ship...' from the titles doesn't seem to be a major problem - just group those into the 'English ship...' set. I don't think consensus failed on this topic at all last time around - we only ended up with inaction (read the comments, there was agreement with the proposals then) because some people insisted that the other naming changes simply had to be sorted at the same time, which I completely disagree with. Since there was no consensus on the other proposal, clearly there was no cause to make the wholesale changes to the naming system that some wanted, and subsequently insisted on blocking this, agreed, change apparently in the expectation that at some point in the future their original proposal would be adopted. Frankly I see no reason to not take this proposal as a separate case, and rename the affected articles in accordance with the current naming system (ie we have French ship Redoutable (1791), so English ship Revenge (1577) conforms perfectly with the current system). Martocticvs (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The system for French ships is worse - some ships have the article called "French ship...", others "French ironclad...", others "French battleship...".--Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember something in WP:NOT about "not dumbed down". I have no particular wish to re-open the issue of ship article naming in its entirety, or even to reopen the discussion about pennant numbers. (I wasn't aware there had been such a recent, heated discussion - if I had been then I might not have raised it!) However now I have unbottled the genie I'm keen to get the specific case of early English warships sorted out. If Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM works out then we will be creating lots of articles on early English warships and I'd like to get things working first. For me it comes down to:

I can see little excuse for us inventing an HMS prefix where none existed. "It makes ship names a bit more consistent" certainly isn't a good case to introduce an anachronism into our article titles. Regards The Land (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

English ship Revenge (1577) is fine, but please not English galleon Revenge, English great ship Revenge, English carrack Revenge, English galley Revenge, etc.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify (as my example has inadvertently given an impression I didn't intend), I wasn't suggesting using all those terms, galleon, carrack etc - just ship. They are obviously more descriptive, but for article titles they are perhaps needlessly so. Martocticvs (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is some precedent to using ship types in article titles (though generally for modern ship types, like battleship, cruiser, etc.) I see using galleon or carrack as analogous. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We are really going to have to do something about the Wikiships' pre-emptive disambiguation. It's not in accordance with MOS and it makes for cumbersome and inelegant titles. Other than that, I have no firm opinion on this matter. Gatoclass (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like preemptive disambiguation, I think the entire encyclopedia should use it, that would solve so many edit and move wars on which is primary. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive disambiguation of ship names is a good idea for reasons that ought to be obvious.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're not obvious to me :) But as Marto says, this is OT and I have no desire to re-open the debate right now. It's just that I was reminded of this issue again by the prospect of English ship Revenge. Gatoclass (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the main topic - I found a source for 1789 as the cut-off: [3] the official website for HMS Victory states that year as the one when it became standard to use the prefix). Martocticvs (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of updating the guideline regarding HMS as there doesn't seem to be much opposition to that. If anyone really feels strongly they can of course change it back. The Land (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As my name has been quoted above, can I make a couple of points. However, the first thing I need to point out is that the example of the Naseby quoted above has the wrong date by any consideration. The Naseby was launched in 1655 (not in 1665), and was renamed Royal Charles in 1660.

I am not really worried about what prefix is used for any ship between 1660 and the early 19th century (when the use of "HMS" became commonplace - in fact, it is not possible to find a precise date on which this acronym was introduced). One must remember that the use of acronyms per se was not used much at this time - words were usually written out in full; and certainly for all of this period the description was "His Majesty's Ship", "His Majesty's Brig", "His Majesty's Armed Vessel" or whatever, depending upon the type of vessel (please remember that in the era of sail the term "ship" had a precise meaning and was not applied to every vessel as is done in the modern era!). You will appreciate that there is a difference between using "His Majesty's Ship" in a heading and using the acronym "HMS", and obviously all major warships of the period were in fact ships rather than other types of vessel, but I suspect that few readers would be interested in the distinction. So using "HMS" is to my way of thinking perfectly acceptable.

What is not acceptable would be to use it for pre-1660 vessels. Certainly it would be absolutely ridiculous to use it for the 1649-1660 period, when the English Navy was a republican force which was opposed to the exiled King, and so was by definition not "His Majesty's". I am alarmed that most of the ships which were renamed at the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 appear under their post-1660 name, wheras to be accurate their original name should be the operative one (with an automatic link from their later name).

I agree with Toddy that it would not be sensible to use English galleon Revenge, English great ship Revenge, English carrack Revenge, English galley Revenge, etc. I can advance the additional reason that there was great imprecision in contemporary use (sadly no-one in the sixteenth century considered in advance the careful deliberations of Wikipedians!) and several of those terms were applied at times to a vessel like the Revenge. Might I suggest however that for pre-1660 state-owned or King's ships the term "English warship" might be better than just "English ship" so as to distinguish the group from mercantile vessels of the period? Rif Winfield (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense - it gives us a logical and clearly defined cut-off that can't be argued over (since as you say, between 1649 and 1660 there was no king for the ships to belong to). I suggested using warship in the discussion last year, but it wasn't very popular with people... sadly as it represents a change to the general policy, it would re-open that huge debate from before that was going no where fast. Martocticvs (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dutch naval ships - prefix

We seem to be using the prefix "HNLMS" for Dutch ships, despite the fact that the Dutch prefix them with "Hr Ms". Isn't this a contravention of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships? I note that His/Her Dutch Majesty's Ship places Janes among the "knowledgeable sources" using "the official prefix Hr.Ms". I take it to mean Wikipedia is therefore not a knowledgeable source! Shem (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But why would they use Hr.Ms. for ships that are properly Zr.Ms. ? HNLMS atleast has the advantage of being consistent without needing to know if the reigning monarch is a king or a queen. And what if the monarch changed between male and female during the life of the ship? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean at least HNLMS is consistently wrong! Hr. Ms./Zr. Ms. can at least be dealt with by redirect, as the large number of HMS/HMCS and HMS/HMAS conflicts are. Shem (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular programming is using HNLMS, so it's not as if it isn't used in English, so is not original research. WP:JARGON also specifies common terms over technical terms. It's not wrong, it's English language terms, which is less proper than the Dutch abbreviation. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HNLMS is the English common name. I assume that it is OK to use English on English-language wikipedia; though this is disputed on some Wikipedia projects, where transliteration from the local language is preferred by the children/grandchildren of emigrees.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I never understood that. English should be English, not non-English language-X from an area that has very little English-speaking population. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do names of Dutch Republic warships have the prefix Dutch ship? E.g. Dutch ship Eendracht (1655) and Dutch ship De Zeven Provinciën (1665). English warships which don't have an official prefix don't have English ship in front e.g. Mary Rose and Peter Pomegranate. S_peakF_ree (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Because, rightly or wrongly, that's what it says here. You've found a couple of exceptions to the rule for English ships. Nearly all of them are in the form English ship Aid (1562), and so on. Shem (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass renaming

There is a proposal for a bot to make a mass renaming of ship class articles and categories. This involves usage of dashes and hyphens. See WP:BOTREQ. For a list of pages to be renamed and their proposed names, see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Snottywong/Ship_classes . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are en-dashes allowed in article titles? A lot of people will be unaware of the different types of dashes and may become frustrated at links not working for reasons they can't see... Martocticvs (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the guideline to reflect the evident consensus that ship class names do not contain hyphens or other dashed. Very few article names appear to include hyphens, while very many do not, and there has hitherto been no move to change them. If someone wants to make the case that this is incorrect, they are of course free to, but I do not believe there is a consensus in favour of hyphenated names. The Land (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And now I've undone that... please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_26#Bot_request. The Land (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the dash MOS pushers are able to create policy, when there is not a general community consensus behind what they are doing. I don't see the notices to the effected parties, or what not; rather it appears that they have formed a WP:CABAL in order to effect the MOS changes they see as correct, then say it's a guideline and force the rest of the community to abide by their thought of what correct is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, maybe because this has been consensus on MOS (ships) for years? No, that must be a conspiracy too. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation and ship classes

Proposal: Amend the guidelines to allow for en dashes

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship classes (which there is consensus for applying to article bodies, but not necessarily to titles) says "Uses of the class as a noun are not hyphenated, while adjectival references are hyphenated, as in Ohio-class submarine: if in doubt, do not hyphenate." I propose appending "If the class name itself contains a hyphen, use an en dash instead (Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin–class destroyer, not Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin-class destroyer)." —Saric (Talk) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This goes right against the guidance at WP:HYPHEN, so far as I can see. A ship class name (like "Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin-class destroyer") is a compound modifier (like "little-celebrated paintings"), not a linked status (like "diode–transistor logic"). I'd be interested to hear why this is proposed what the proposed benefit is. Shem (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a tradition in typesetting to "upgrade" a hyphen to an en dash if one of the suboordinate constructs itself contains a hyphen, in order to make the intended syntax more obvious. (The increased readability is the intended benefit.) Did I make that up? —Saric (Talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm with you now. There are problems with using the n-dash in titles - in particular, it's difficult to type in text, so a redirect from the hyphenated form, as well as the unhyphenated form, is necessary. Given that the visual difference as rendered in most browsers is insignificant, I can't see the point. I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is, although I do know the n-dash/hyphen debate is intense at times. Shem (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am against n-dashes in ship article titles. The Land (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The time to have n-dashes in article titles is when people start making computer keyboards with n-dash keys as well as hyphen keys. Please let us have article titles that normal people can type, without having to use redirects.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are plenty of articles, like Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem, that are going to have en dashes in their titles regardless of our decision here. One can argue against en dashes in general in the name of simplicity, but there's no gain in simplicity from having en dashes in some titles and hyphens where there "should" be en dashes in other titles. —Saric (Talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem is what most people actually write. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support — Using endashes can resolve ambiguity in multi-hyphenated compounds, and this rule would apply to only a very small percentage of ship class articles (only those classes whose class name itself already contains a hyphen, which is very few). Until very recently, the MOS listed a case for using endashes in compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens. This was recently removed from the MOS, and I'm trying to figure out why. But, it would have applied directly to this discussion. See the MOS from about a month ago, case #5. Whether or not keyboards have endashes is completely irrelevant, and there is no rational reason why using redirects from hyphenated titles should be discouraged. —SW— ^babble 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Discourage: I'm a veteran of that discussion; it had nothing to do with the utility or the clarity of the encyclopedia. The case to use an en dash in such compounds is that they could be ambiguous otherwise. But the grouping in Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin-class destroyer is already determined by the italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with PMA in this case(!). There's nothing wrong with en dashes in titles, but this is a not a use that's encouraged in the latest MOS revision (though as PMA complained, the relevant sections do not have a perfect consensus, so might be subject to further revision); the "tradition in typesetting to 'upgrade' a hyphen to an en dash" is a little-used and peculiarly American thing. As for the example, the only mention that I can find in a book uses the italics and hyphens, which leaves no ambiguity. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Amend The arguments about it being hard to type an en dash are irrelevant. We don't write articles for editors, but for readers, and for readers we have the search window and redirects to take care of such details. That's long-standing consensus on WP. And of course you can always use a hyphen, and someone will clean up after you, just as with anything else, so there is no actual difficulty. That said, the purpose of an en dash is to disambiguate situations where hyphens are not optimally clear. As Dicklyon noted, the italics of the ship-class name are generally sufficient. Therefore I personally don't see much point in using en dashes in such cases. However, the ship-class names are only italicized when named after a particular ship. In other cases they are not, and for such classes an en dash may be beneficial. I would suggest amending this proposal to support en dashes in cases where italicization is not used. I think we would need to see actual examples of the articles that would be affected to decide. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Awhile ago I generated a list of all ship class articles that might be affected by this type of change. They're spread across various pages, see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Snottywong/Ship classes. I think I would be ok with italicizing the appropriate titles and allowing the italics to serve the function of disambiguation, however in these cases I would want to see the article title italicized as well, and in most cases they are not. —SW— ^confabulate 05:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an easy fix, unless we have some crusader against italics. I'd be interested in seeing what's left over when we hyphenate and italicize all titles per the shipping MOS. Can you determine which of those titles would be properly italicized, and which would not be? Then perhaps the lists can be divided into italicized (w hyphens) and non-italicized (to discuss). It may be simpler when we're looking at a few concrete examples. Or not. — kwami (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Apply the class-name guidelines to titles

Whether the rules about hyphens are amended or not, I propose they be applied to article titles just as well as article bodies. If consensus is against this proposal, the exception for titles should be explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship classes. —Saric (Talk) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of using the hyphen in the title, since I see no reason why the format of the title should not follow the rules of English (as laid down in Wikipedia's house rules and the WikiProject Ships rules). In fact, I would go so far as to say I look to those who wish to maintain the current lack of hyphen in titles to explain why the rules shouldn't apply fully to the article title. Shem (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I too am in favor of applying the guidelines as written, as they follow normal English usage. I am curious as to why so many thousands (?) of articles have been named against the guidelines. —Diiscool (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is a countervailing convention in certain influential publications to not hyphenate ship-class names in titles and headings.

I think the real questions are:

• Does the convention of not hyphenating compound adjectives formed from nouns in titles and headings extend beyond Janes and the Naval Institute Press?
• Does it apply only to ship-class names, to proper nouns as compound adjectives, or more broadly?
• Does it have sanction in style manuals?
• And finally, given answers to the above 3, do we want to follow it?

My take is that if we do not wish to follow the current MOS then we need to modify the MOS (or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship classes) to support our decision and to do that we need a well thought out position supported by data. Dankarl (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships series (from Conway Maritime Press) does not use hyphens. I don't know that I ever see hyphens in book/article titles outside Wikipedia (see for instance 1, 2, 3. It took me a while to find this example, which appears to use an n-dash rather than a hyphen in the title). Usage in prose generally favors a hyphen (as far as I have seen), but that's not what we're discussing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really deeply uncomfortable with following the sources for usage in this case. This example is from Hansard (an ultra-reliable source) but it manages to use "Trafalgar Class Submarines", "Trafalgar-class submarine" and "Trafalgar class submarine" (note caps and hyphens) in the space of five lines. We wouldn't dream of citing examples of apostrophe usage that go against MOS guidelines and then suggesting we follow them. The fact is that most people really don't understand hyphen usage properly, and to my mind we should follow our own house style. Can anybody find a style guide (eg NYT, Naval Institute Press) that says titles should be unhyphenated while text should be hyphenated? I can't. Shem (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Naval Institute Press has an online style guide but you have to log in to view it. Is anyone a member? See http://www.usni.org/store/books/general-reference/naval-institute-guide-naval-writing-2nd-edition. —Diiscool (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this important discussion needs to be more widely advertised. Has anyone been to MILHIST? Another notice at WPSHIPS wouldn't go amiss. 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Proper English says that X-class ship is a compound adjective and always needs a hyphen to connect the name and class. I don't like having one standard in the title and another for the article body because it looks odd if there's a hyphen in the first sentence and not in the actual article title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus for moving thousands of articles the last time this was discussed and I don't think there will be this time. De facto, our style is not to hyphenate ship class titles. I don't think there is anything wrong with this - I will try to look up the last discussion on this subject, when I had a look at my bookshelf and didn't see any consistent usage of hyphens. The Land (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - If there is a standard for class names used in prose, there is no reason they shouldn't be applied to the article title. To do otherwise is unnecessarily inconsistent. In the case of any titles which are changed to include endashes (depending on the result of the proposal above), redirects from the endash version of the title should be created at the same time. In the absence of a clear style majority in reliable sources, the only thing we have to go on are the rules of english. And per Sturmvogel above, X-class ship is a compound adjective which should always be hyphenated. Per WP:HYPHEN #3: "Many compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (before the noun they qualify: a light-blue handbag), are not hyphenated when used predicatively (separated from the noun: the handbag was light blue). Hyphenation also occurs in proper names." So, a hyphen is used when the adjective is used attributively (before the noun: as in Trafalgar-class submarine) but not when used predicatively (separated from the noun, as in the submarine is Trafalgar class). Our article titles are clearly using the attributive form. —SW— ^yak 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reputable publishers do not use a hyphen between the ship class name and the word "class" in titles and headings. A hyphen may be used to link the ship class name and the word "class" in the text (for example, US Naval Institute publications do this). Wikipedia should follow normal English-language convention; it is against Wikipedia policy for Wikipedia to innovate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, you and I have been round this before without you ever satisfying me that it is normal in English to leave the hyphens out of titles. Where's the style guide? Where does it say "leave the hyphen out"? I'm so used to seeing inconsistent use of hyphens, I'm reluctant to back-work a style guide for another publication, and then follow it. Shem (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought of reading books published by reputable publishers and seeing how it is done? Oh no, that would not give you the answer you want, so you are not willing to do that. Shem, if you and Kwami want to rewrite English grammar, go write your own grammar book - you could call it "Eat shoots and hyphenates". Maybe your ideas will catch on. Wikipedia, however, has a policy of not innovating. So until your new grammar becomes the norm, please stick to normal conventions of English grammar.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AGF, Toddy. I do. Shem (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "normal conventions of English grammar" and what "reputable publishers" do are not always in agreement. Most grammars do specifically call for hyphens in such situations; yet it is also common in fields where usage is very familiar to start to drop hyphens that would be useful to readers less familiar with the material. Some guides specifically discuss this (e.g. this one and this one), and some recommend not dropping hyphens when writing for an uninitiated audience (like in the AMA's guide about small-cell carcinoma, if I recall correcty). In WP, our style is (and should be) to write as clearly as possible, for the widest possible audience, which is why dropping useful signals is not part of our style. And "X-class ship" is pretty easy to find in books for most relevant X; certainly not a usage outlier; also in titles, as in this GAO report, this appendix title, and this book. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ahdi Book of Style (3rd ed.) recommends insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, non-small-cell carcinoma and says, "The term non-small-cell carcinoma is an example of one of those terms that is evolving away from hyphenation. Many sources are beginning to cite nonsmall-cell carcinoma as an acceptable expression." — kwami (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support – it has been generally agreed at WT:MOS (by all but PMA), and widely applied in WP, that style guidelines extend to titles. WP style does include using hyphens in compound adjectives, even in situtations where they are sometimes omitted in fields in which the compounds are so familiar as to not need to clarification of structure that the hyphens provide. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose What is generally agreed at WT:MOS is usually agreed nowhere else; this (which violates policy) is no exception. Please do what the sources do; anything else makes us look this ill-informed linguistic cranks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policy does it violate? Shem (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE#Common names, which implements the previous section. Use what is recognizable and natural, not what a few people at WT:MOS want; follow sources which know a great deal about ships, and more about English than most of the MOSsies do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Obvious Title and text should match. This is standard WP practice. How are we even debating this? — kwami (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Title and text should match; both should match the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all know this is what you think, but you've demonstrated that it leads to chaos, which most of us would prefer to avoid. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose A large proportion of high quality sources do not, and appear never to have, used hyphens (or other dashes) in ship Classes - Jane's Fighting Ships does not (either in titles or text)- and I have checked both the 1985–86 and 1960–61 books (i.e. over a 25 year range, with multiple editors and publishers)- useage there is "Narwal" class. The Naval Institute Guide to the Combat Fleets of the World does not - here I have checked the 1998–1999 and 1986–1987 editions. The Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships series does not - both in volumes published by the Naval Institute Press (US) and Conway Maritime Press (UK). Real life useage does not supprt the use of hyphens/dashes either in titles or in running text.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yet the moderate proportion who do use hyphens validates WP style as among the valid styles for such things. Did you read the bit I mentioned above about usage guides on this kind of thing? Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Much of the opposition seems to centre around the impression that reliable works on naval subjects often leave out the hyphen in titles. Wikipedia isn't a work on naval subjects - it is, in fact, a general encyclopaedia. Shem (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly; and the use of optional hyphens is a widely recommended way to make material more readily understandable to general audiences. That is WP style, no? Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As for the comment that Jane's uses "Narwal" class, that is of course true, but WP guides on ships have never AFAIK recommended using scare quotes. Jane's is a bit irrelevant if we aren't going to follow Jane's conventions anyway. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Do we have to state the ship type at all? Wouldn't be a lot simpler and easier to just state the ship/class name, and "class", and leave it at that? (I do realize some class names are duplicates, but they could be dabbed some other way.) In fact, the style "name class type", with no hyphen, appears to simply be a type of disambiguation already, and we don't generally pre-disambiguate. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That… actually makes a lot of sense. For readers who don't know anything about ships (e.g., me), this would make for puzzling article titles (what is Iowa class about? education?), but that's probably no more of a concern than the non-obvious subject matter of ultrafilter. —Saric (Talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

ORP Huragan and ORP Orkan

I’ve opened a discussion here, as I’m sure the title offends against NC(Ships) somehow. I am inviting comments. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ship name (ship year) and Commons categories

Okay, so I am kind of new to a lot of this so bear with me. (I do learn fast) I'm a big fan of cruise ships and have been looking at a lot of the different lines and ship pages on here. I've noticed that for the most part on Wikipedia there is little rhyme nor reason to naming whereas over on Commons where most ship images are stored, they've moved most categories to Shipname(ship year) This kind of breaks most external links for {{commons category}} links that are used in some of the articles. Not really sure where to go with this, but anyone have any thoughts? HawkeyeFLA (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, fixing {{comonscat}} is easy enough in that case. Wikipedia Commons goes its own way in naming sometimes (this is expecially noticable when it comes to aircraft...); WP:NC-SHIPS may be controversial at times but it works well enough; WP:ITAINTBROKE, you might say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess as I am cruising around the various articles, I'll just keep an eye out for it and correct as needed. Commons has mostly kept the old categories with a link to the new one, but I find that it's annoying to have to click again to get to content. Ah well. That's what the edit button exists for. HawkeyeFLA (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As an extra: Please realise that Commons is no Wikipedia and has its own naming convention for all ships. See commons:Category:Ships by name. Main reason: to deal with different Wikipedias that use different naming systems and many, many ships have the same name. We use the date of completion there for civilian ships and date of first commissioning for naval ships and try to get rid of all prefixes, as the name is determinative and prefixes are different per country/language. Any prefix can be used in any Wikipedia, but even naval ships don't need a prefix for their name in Commons, as - again - it is no Wikipedia but a database for images. Must be as much as possible language independent and prefixes have no value there. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of "The" in front of ships' names.

Common practice, at least in the navies of the English speaking world, is that a ship's name is a proper name and therefore should not, in general, be preceded by "the". Thus, "The Enterprise slowed to ..." would be replaced by "Enterprise slowed to...".

There are obvious exceptions (such as "The Ohio-class submarine...") but this would seem worth adding to the guide. ZipperScooter (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This page covers how articles should be titled, nothing else. You're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles currently says (I've added the bold here for emphasis):

Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name:
Victory was Nelson's flagship ... or
The Victory was Nelson's flagship ...

ie it contradicts itself, should "or" be "not"? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While not necessary, there is nothing wrong with using a definite article eg "Sink the Bismarck" and a book beside me here (Peter Padfield's Maritime supremacy and the opening of thew Western Mind: Naval campaigns that shaped the modern world 1588-1782 ) uses "the" before ship names. What doesn't work is "The HMS Victory was..."; whereas "the USS Enterprise is... " does. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best to copy the markup along with the text when quoting. That bit from Using ship names in articles uses {{xt}} and {{xtn}} templates to distinguish between the two apparently conflicting examples.

Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name:

Victory was Nelson's flagship ... or

The Victory was Nelson's flagship ...

The markup was intended to convey preference for the style shown in the first example without prohibiting the style shown in the second.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think the wording needs changing. We have text that says "Generally a definite article is not needed", then given two examples one with the article, one without - with no obvious statement that one is preferred over the other. Colour alone (which is not always obvious, depending on the monitor and the reader's eyes) is not sufficient. If we prefer one form (eg no definite article) over the other, we should says so explicitly, eg:

• Generally, a definite article is not needed... and should not be used. Victory was ... or not The Victory ...

If we prefer one form but don't explicitly want to prohibit the other, we should say so explicitly.

• Generally, a definite article is not needed... but its use is acceptable. Victory was ... (preferred), or The Victory ... (acceptable)

The purpose of the guideline is to make it clear to editors - who need to refer to a ship but don't know what either Wikipedia or nautical conventions are - how we should or should not do, so as to encourage consistency. I don't believe the current guideline does that. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been my experience that the best way to find out what editors think is to change an article. Stating an intention change an article on the talk page very often yields little in the way of conversation or opinion. So I changed it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is fine for articles, but for policies and guidelines, as the note at the top says "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

That being said, I have followed your lead and further clarified the guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC notification

There's an RFC underway at WikiProject Ships about whether ship classes should be hyphenated in article titles. Your input would be welcome. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Australian warship hyphenation

I've just - somewhat boldly - added a note suggesting that Australian warship classes not be hyphenated as this isn't used in Australian reference works. This is based on the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes. If anyone thinks this is unjustified, please revert me, but I'd very much appreciate it if such a reversion was based on a survey of the works on these ships which proves that hyphens are in fact commonly used; my checking indicates that they aren't. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it Nick for now, no offence, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about hyphens. But the discussion at WT:Ships seemed to be more in favour of not having Australian ships as an exception, rather than allowing it. The discussion died down a bit there, but I've tried to get it going again. I've also raised some more issues with an exception that I would be interested to hear responses to. I also think the guideline, if we do decide to change it, should be stronger than your current wording, to say that exceptions are definitely allowed, and perhaps what level of sourcing can support this. Benea (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

HMS, etc

Following a recent discussion at WT:SHIPS (here; the latest of several previous discussions) I wish to propose adding a sentence here to reflect the current consensus on the subject, to read:
“Several navies use 'His/Her Majesty's Ship' as a prefix; to avoid confusion with the British HMS this project follows NATO practice and adds a national disambiguator to prefixes for non-British ships eg. HDMS (Danish), HNLMS (Netherlands), HNoMS (Norwegian), HSwMS (Swedish), etc”.
I would propose to asdd this to the "Naming articles about military ships", after the sentence "Henry Grace à Dieu not HMS Henry Grace à Dieu". Is this acceptable? Xyl 54 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur except that I would put the new sentence before "Do not use punctuation ..." If there is a list of NATO accepted prefixes, we should have a reference to that list either by including it here or by reference.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Change to guidelines needed?

I recently created two articles about the captured French ships, HMS Magnanime (1744) and HMS Superb (1710). The disambiguation dates are the year they were commissioned in the Royal Navy and were already pre-determined by red links. I have looked at similar articles and this does seem to be the style but the current guidelines do not say this, merely stating that the year of construction or launch should be used and making no exception for captured ships. Does anyone mind if I change these guidelines to reflect what appears to be the current practice?--Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that simple. I've just checked again and HMS Magnanime (1744) is disambiguated by its launch date, so one of these articles needs to be re-named when a decision has been taken as to the correct way to disambiguate.--Ykraps (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My preference is to dab by launch year, which I believe is the generally established way of doing things. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What Editor Mjroots said. Move HMS Superb (1710) to HMS Superb (1708).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that creates a bizarre mish-mash of a title, a name completely divorced from the disambiguation used. I.e. there was no HMS Superb in 1708, she was sailing for a different and enemy navy. In this case there is only a two year difference. Sometimes there can be a much larger gap, and there can have been a ship with the same name in service at the same time. For example, a French ship is launched in 1750. She is captured in 1760 and named HMS Foo. There had been an HMS Foo in service from 1745 until 1759. Naming like this confuses this situation massively, implying a ship is in service with a navy at a time when she was actually in service with a different one entirely. Move Magnanime to HMS Magnanime (1748), as its a standard we already have, for example HMS Canopus (1798), HMS Sans Pareil (1794), HMS Tonnant (1798), etc. Benea (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar considerations in relation to ex-mercantile purchases. An example that by chance I was editing today: HMS Sealark (1903), built as a yacht in 1878.

There are good arguments either way, but my slight inclination (for naval ships only) would be to go for year of commissioning as that preserves the better chronological sequence when listed with others of the same name. Davidships (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The year of commissioning does appear to be preferred, see HMS Foudroyant (1758) as one more example, but this is not stated in the guidelines. Can we agree that this is the correct method and alter the guidelines accordingly so that when I list HMS Magnanime (1744) at requested moves, I can quote the naming conventions in support and hopefully avoid further discussion?--Ykraps (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't HMS Foudroyant (1758) disambiguated by capture date not commissioning date? With what has been said, I'm going to change my position and suggest that the disambiguation date to be used should be the date of acquisition which covers the case of a captured ship and a ship purchased into a navy when the article title is the naval ship name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the disambiguation is mainly there to disambiguate; that it distinguishes articles with similar names in an organised fashion is little more than a bonus, and whether we disambiguate by launch date or capture date is of little overall importance. Let us not forget that modern warships (and I exclude US warships, for which hull numbers are part of their identity) are disambiguated (somewhat bizarrely) by pennant number, which tells you nothing whatsoever about chronological order, or anything else (anyone care to put HMS Duncan (D37), HMS Duncan (D99) and HMS Duncan (F80) into any sort of order? What about the average Wikipedia reader searching for HMS Duncan?). So, as long as we avoid obvious insanities (and I'm inclined to agree with Benea about HM Ships with disambiguation dates long before they held the name), then it doesn't matter. Shem (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The average Wikipedia user searching for HMS Duncan gets a dab page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate what Shem says, that the primary purpose is to disambiguate, I personally would find it easier to locate the right ship if I knew whether I was searching for it by its launch date or its date of acquisition. Ships that were launched by and remained in the same navy are disambiguated by their launch date. Most would concur that this is sensible and that it agrees with the current guidelines. Ships that have been sold, captured or re-named however are inconsistently dealt with: Some are disambiguated by their launch date (HMS Magnanime (1744), HMS Royal Charles (1655)) and some are disambiguated by the year they were acquired (HMS Canopus (1798), HMS Superb (1710)). I agree with Benea that the current practice is to use the year the ship was acquired/re-named, but this seems at odds with the current guidelines which only discusses launch dates. I would ideally like to rewrite the guidelines then move the articles to their 'correct' namespace. I am disinclined to make a unilateral stand however so if there is no support for this I will keep the status quo.--Ykraps (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Charles is a bit of a unusual case to start with because it changed name, not nation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I believe the 'standard' is already 'captured ships by date of capture/impressment, all others by launch date', the exceptions are outliers that should be fixed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is the standard but where does it say that in the guidelines?--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There was general agreement here on following this standard, and since there were no strong objections, I've updated the guidelines, rather than let this proposal die away. Feel free to tweak the specific wording if you like. Benea (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you spend a little bit of time and copyedit what you've just written in the guidelines please. I don't think the result is what you intended.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Over disambiguation

I note that the first line of "Naming articles about civilian ships" and "Naming articles about military ships" both say "Military ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions. One of those basic principles is WP:PRECISE, which says "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" (my italics). In short, it is a well-rooted principle of Wikipedia that we don't disambiguate article titles that are already precise enough. We've had this out a few times on this page, I seem to remember. I've added a note (or rather, the same one 3 times) and an example to the project page for clarity's sake. If you think that's contentious, please revert and discuss here. Many thanks, Shem (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Shem, I’m not convinced that it is “wrong to disambiguate per WP:PRECISE” if there is only one ship of the name, when WP:PRECISE says “Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria” and that “…these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines,” like this one.

The point of having specific naming conventions I’d have thought, is so that articles within a particular subject have some uniformity of style; and ship names with prefix (like SS, HMS) and suffix (year of launch, pennant number) is part of the WP:SHIPS look, established by a consensus of ship article editors. So I think the note is over-prescriptive. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I routinely remove disambiguators for articles that don't need them - particularly for "USS/HMS/etc. Foo (Unnecessary hull/pennant/etc. number)" (see for instance this one). Uniformity of style is fine but hull/pennant numbers don't need to be in the title. The first line of prose will certainly do. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just been back over the thousands of lines of discussion we had in October 2010 about naming conventions, and now I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned it. Even so, I would note that there's no consensus to clap a disambiguator on every ship, so WP:PRECISE very much applies. Shem (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody recently added a launch date to one of my French cruiser articles which was completely unnecessary as she was the only such type with that name ever built. I almost undid it, but didn't feel like the fuss would have been worth it. As a related issue I despise using pennant numbers as disambiguators precisely because you can't identify the ship you want at a glance in the search field unless you're already familiar with them. (The ship index page is generally a page too far for me to bother with unless the ship is completely unfamiliar to me.) The other thing is that they sometimes change; I have occasional run-ins with a RN vet who served aboard the minelayer HMS Plover back in the '50s and he says that he's got a picture of her with a different pennant number than the one she used in WW2. He may well be right as my sources don't cover the postwar period very well, but I have to keep reverting his changes to the article title as his assertion is unsourced. If we used launch year instead, this wouldn't be an issue. I could honestly care less about stylistic uniformity as I'm always in favor of anything that involves less typing. If there's no need for a disambiguator, I see no need to use one in the article title just to maintain uniformity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ship had significant careers in two "navies"?

I was editing the article USS Hilo (AGP-2) which was previously Eldridge R. Johnson's notable civilian yacht/scientific research vessel "Caroline". It looks like there is enough for "Caroline" to have its own article but this was not a change between "navies". Large parts of this MOS reads like "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (naval ships)", maybe some of it should be codified under "Naming articles about military ships" and the rest should be reworded a bit to cover all ships. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the general point that it makes sense to treat all ships the same in this respect. But I don't think that a separate Caroline (yacht) would be justified by the amount of material so far (I've added an entry on the Caroline dab page for now). Davidships (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a great deal of material (not in the article) on Caroline (yacht), which started me looking for MOS on what to do re: an article. I may put it up some time soon when I overcome laziness on my part. I'll have to look into names since the same guy had a 175 foot Caroline before he built the 279 foot Caroline. And I haven't looked into other Carolines re: naming conflicts. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

   All fine, IMO; especially, don't contort the article's treatment in response to the fact that too few notable naval vessels have enuf civilian history to justify explicit guidelines for handling those special cases! But irrespective of whether you eventually find enuf content to justify a separate article on the yacht, the naval ship's construction at the behest of a notable civilian, and its role as an apparently somewhat notable research vessel, IMO clearly require creation of Caroline (yacht) as a Rdr -- which i now perform. If there's eventually an article justified by the significance of those aspects (and perhaps even the original design (technical innovations or peculiarities? amenities?), and/or circumstances of its sale, and/or its commercial service), there's nothing suspect about expanding such a Rdr to an article! So I'm creating the Rdr, without prejudice to proposals for an article to replace it.
--Jerzy•t 11:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A usage quirk

   And perhaps i should start by apologizing that this is a quibble about a quirk. I've only bothered to hunt down one more example, to compare to the case that drew my attention, but assume the pattern i've observed would continue. I feel sure that the creators of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum did not intend to insinuate that the institution is intrepid, but rather to acknowledge (and brag) that the U.S.S. Intrepid is integral to the institution. Thus i am surprised that this museum centered on U.S.S. Intrepid is not named either "U.S.S. Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum" or "Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum". The other example that quickly came to mind suggests the choice is no quirk nor aberration: USS Constitution Museum, Old Ironsides, Boston, MA] not only agrees on plain-style, but does so in explicit disregard of the apparently solidly founded "USS Constitution" styling convention.
   IMO what we should do is constrained by anything they consistently do (and maybe even what they most -- but not fully -- consistently do), however illogical i find it.
   (Oops, here's the Nat Pk Svc again:

The physical address of the Pearl Harbor Visitor Center is:

1 Arizona Memorial Place

Honolulu, HI 96818

and

turn left at the 4th traffic light onto Arizona Memorial Place

near the top and at bottom of the same Web page.[shrug])
--Jerzy•t 11:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Are suggesting that ship naming conventions should apply to things that aren't ships when those things are related to use or include the name of a ship?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)