Talk:Patrol torpedo boat PT-109/Archive 1

Untitled
Discussion related to user BJWeeks. BJ, You need to discuss this before wholesale deleting my edits. (jngilmar) I had the majority of them already referenced. I think your deletion was rude and uncalled for. Especially in light of the spirit of wikipedia. I can back up these additions with facts and references and have done so already. You said in your edit summary the changes were un-discussed, ok so here is your chance to discuss it. This is a collaborative effort not just what you like to see. Please feel free to discuss these issues before taking any additional actions. Thanks Jngilmar (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Jerry
 * Referencing to Geocities and forums does not qualify as reliable sourcing, your edits violated our policy on living persons in parts (with regards to Riddler), and your contributions gave undue weight to what prima facie seem to be conspiracy theories. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Polynesian canoes are mentioned. The islanders are predominantly Melanesian, and are descendants of Tolais from New Ireland (PNG). This ethnic group make only small paddling dugouts, and are not long distance seafarers. In contrast, Polynesian canoes can be very large and fast under sail. Polynesians within the SI and PNG are descended from a small number of Samoan explorers. The local Melanesian dialect has, however, been strongly influenced by these Samoans. (Even more so in Vanuatu and Fiji.) Some one who has lived in the area should should give the correct pronunciation of Tulagi, and other place names. In Samoan it would be 'tulangi'. (Spellings by early missionaries often used linguistic alphabets, for exact pronunciation, but readers and cartographers back in Europe were not aware of this. For example, 'Pango Pango' becomes Pago Pago.)203.219.69.192 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to know if there is an unamed sailor in the famous PT 109 picture of the crew. If there is, I might be able to give you his name. Cole.slawprincess (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MacArthur
MacArthur said in that same newspaper article that "Eisenhower was always weak, even as a young officer". He said many outrageous things. We don't put his quotes in their biographies nor should it be included herein. Further, it was said during the 1960 election and he goes on to state PT boats "only had one torpedo". Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Location of collision?
The article currently estimates the location of the collision with Amagiri as near 8°06′44″S 156°54′20″E. According to Google Maps this location is about 50 feet from Kasolo Island (aka Kennedy Island aka Plum Pudding Island) to which the survivors swam about 3.5 miles. Can anyone shed any light on this discrepancy? What is the source of these coordinates?

Further, the article places the collision in the Blackett Strait between Kolombangara and Arundel (Arundel is aka Kohinggo). This is inconsistent with the stated coordinates, which are not between those two islands. It also seems incorrect, for at least two reasons:

1. The first swim would have been at least 10 miles, not 3.5 miles.

2. The direction of the first swim would have been approx WNW, slightly against the southerly current.

A map associated with Ballard's 2002 search shows the collision at a location that makes more sense: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/photogalleries/0702_pt109.html

My best guess according to the above map is about 8°02'50"S 156°56'07"E. This is about 5 miles NE of the article's stated coordinates.

I don't know how precise the historical record is on this point, nor how much effort the mapmakers put into making the map agree exactly with the record. They may have felt that a couple of miles one way or another weren't critical for the purposes of that map. More research is needed, preferably by someone more knowledgeable than I am. In the meantime, Ballard's map would seem to be a substantial improvement, and such a historical event warrants the best treatment we can give it. I don't feel confident enough to make the change myself, but, pending further research, I'd suggest something like the following.

...run down by the destroyer on 2 August 1943, between Kolombangara and Gizo in the Solomon Islands, near 8°02'50"S 156°56'07"E. Mandruss (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absent any response, I am going ahead with this change. I am dropping the seconds values from the coordinates and rounding to the nearest minute. To include the seconds values would imply more precision than is likely known about the location of the collision. In this area of the globe, a minute of latitude or longitude is equal to only about a mile. Mandruss (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you call a PT boat?
This article denotes a PT boat in two different ways:

1. PT-109

2. the PT-109

This inconsistency would never get past an editor. While both of these formats may be widely used, it's not unreasonable to expect consistency within a single article. But I'm creating this Talk entry because, although I have my preference (#1), I can't claim any authority on the subject.

As far I can see, the "PT boat" article uses #1 throughout.

I'll watch for discussion for a month or so; then, absent any objection, I'll change everything to #1. Mandruss (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was in the Navy for 7 years. Aside from that I have no references to offer aside from this is just how we did it. The way we did it is we used the article "the" when it made sense to the flow of the sentence. For instance... The Uss Ogden (LPD-5) was my first command. LPD-5 could accommodate more than a thousand individuals, but only carried a little under 300 permanent crew. LPD-5 was of the LPD-4   class of amphibious ship. If it didn't help sentence flow we didn't use it, but it doesn't really have any part in referencing a vessel itself.  Nick F. S. 72.87.130.56 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Something I just thought about, there was one case where we always used the article "the" before the name. That is if we abbreviated the name of the ship or vessel, for instance if the full name is USS Ogden (LPD-5) then we would refer to it as "the Ogden" if we didn't want to say the full name. It is my understanding, however, that pt boats aren't named vessels, so this may not apply very well to your purposes, but may help you in finding a reference for what you want to do. Nick F.S. 72.87.130.56 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your service!


 * I dunno, seems to me that whether it "makes sense to the flow of the sentence" is a matter of personal writing style. USS Ogden (LPD-5) was my first command sounds fine to me, for example.


 * I ran across a document written by the CO of USS Ogden in 1971. It includes a long narrative section in which the first reference uses USS OGDEN, all of the remainder use simply OGDEN, and the word "the" isn't used at all. Apparently this CO used a different writing style from yours.  This document is here: http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/o/lpd-5/1970.pdf


 * Absent an "official" Navy policy, I think the only thing to do is be consistent with the PT boat article which, as I said, appears to use #1 throughout. Mandruss (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, I agree and went ahead on 31 March and changed all the ones I could find to option #1. If you see any others, go ahead and change them herein. No objection has been made; no revert has been made, either. Kierzek (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know what a reasonable discussion period was. New at this and still feeling my way around.Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation date format
I think it's time we standardized the format of dates in this article's citations. They currently use at least three different formats. If we can reach some kind of consensus, I'll make the necessary changes. The three choices, as I see it, are:


 * 8 May 2014 - the format used in the body text.


 * 2014-05-08 - shorter, especially in November and December.


 * May 8, 2014 - arguably the format most commonly used in the U.S.

Anybody have a preference or opinion? Prefer a little variety in date formats, perhaps? Mandruss (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia the date format in which the article was originally written, much like the type of English used (American or British) is what is to be used throughout the article's history. So check back and see what was used. I would but have only limited time tonight herein. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The earliest available version, unless there's a way to access earlier ones outside of "View history", is from April 2006. It contains one date, August 2, 1943. Are you saying we should use that format, despite the fact that the article uses 2 August 1943 now? Mandruss (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kierzek (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All due respect but I have a serious problem with that rationale. I'd rather drop the issue than do that. Mandruss (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:STRONGNAT:

"Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage."


 * From WP:DATERET:

"The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk. [emphasis mine]"


 * At some point, someone converted the entire body text to 8 May 2014 format, very possibly using WP:STRONGNAT as justification. They should have gained consensus first, as stated in WP:DATERET. But they didn't, and no one reverted.


 * Fine, I would now like to seek retroactive consensus on the 8 May 2014 format, per WP:DATERET. In my opinion, it's the better format for a military topic. Only a very rigid interpretation of the guidelines would require changing everything back to May 8, 2014 at this late date. Mandruss (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Further, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, there is no requirement for the format used in citations to agree with that in the body text. This makes all of the above a separate and independent issue. This talk is about citations, the earliest version of the article did not contain any citations, and I'm not inclined to go through all the updates to determine which format was first used in a citation. I'm just seeking consistency within the citations, nothing more. Mandruss (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the sections of WP you cite; WP:DATERET is what I was citing; generally the first author's manual of style (MOS) is what is used throughout; was my point. I checked today and see the article started as a short stub way back in 2003. By 2004, m/d/y format was first used in the body of the article. And as noted in WP:STRONGNAT, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month..."
 * Having written and worked on a good number of military articles (including GA), I prefer d/m/y but do believe in continuity and consistency in articles. With that said, if no one objects, d/m/y is agreeable to me in the end; I don't feel that strongly about it in this particular case. Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hate to beat this horse to death, but I don't think I'm communicating very well. Let me try again, if I may.


 * When I started this talk topic, I didn't know that the guidelines say that the format used in references needn't be the same as that used in the body. Had I known that, I wouldn't have gone on about the body text format, since it's not pertinent to the question at hand. I think I confused the issue by doing that.


 * So we're back to the question of which format would be preferred for references, and I don't think the military argument applies there like it does for the body. My choice would be 2014-05-08, because it's so concise, it's always the same length, and it never requires an editor to know how to spell "February". Is that equally agreeable to you? Mandruss (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally believe it should be uniformed, such like we did on the Adolf Hitler article; but again, I don't feel that strongly about it herein; if the article was being put up for WP:GA, that would be different. Kierzek (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If date format consistency between body and references would ever be used as a consideration for GA, then MOS:DATEUNIFY, which is clearly contrary to that, should be changed.


 * I have changed all accessdate= to the 8 May 2014 format. This still leaves some other kinds of dates in other formats, such as "John F. Kennedy Library Press Release August 3, 2009". Do you think those should be changed as well? Mandruss (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

circular link
William Liebenow is a blue link, but clicking on it simply brings me to the top of this PT article. Is this as it should be, or is the Lt.'s link meant for a future/non-existing article, and this got caught up in a previously created re-direct? Kdammers (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should not be linked back here that way. "Caught up" in circular link by the re-direct. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Title case
Why was the title case of this article changed, without discussion here. A change wiping out it's stat count of user Views. Broichmore (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dicklyon can defend his move (and could have cited the relevant MoS guideline), but there is no requirement to discuss or get a consensus before a move unless the move is predictably controversial. As for views stats, I know nothing; one who knows nothing might expect the stats to be moved as well. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A stat count doesn't move with a title change. This was described here in paragraphs 4 and 5. Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be consistent there are quite a few pages in the Category:PT boats which were lower-cased and should be returned to upper casing. The Motor Torpedo Boat page and related RM has determined upper-casing for this topic. I wasn't commenting earlier and assumed Dicklyon was correct, but in looking at the primary article and the related RM he seems to have made a good faith mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple logic suggests that Motor Torpedo Boat should be the focal point; i.e. no other moves of this type should be made unless and until one succeeds in moving that to Motor torpedo boat. Its move log is empty. I would define "succeeds" as lasting for about two months. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This was all discussed at the ships project, as Broichmore knows since he was there: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. It was pointed out that Motor Torpedo Boat is a Royal Navy proper name (some say, anyway), while the American PT boats are not that, and are named generically, probably wrongly.  There are pending suggestions to move to Patrol torpedo boat PT-109 and such, but that hasn't quite converged.  There was no significant opposition to lowercase on these.  Broichmore is still out of touch with why WP uses sentence case for titles. Dicklyon (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you care to look here at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy you can see the thinking behind how the USN defines designators for vessels of this type. It is consistent. First (the useage), second (the qualifier), third (a further method of subdivision). Example PHM, Patrol Missile Hydrofoil. You can see the applied logic through all the designators listed, and they are in caps. Yes, it's clunky, but it is by design. Presumably because its clunky its not often echoed in free speech or prose. Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of touch? The policy you invoke actually says: In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions'... Broichmore (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to read and try to absorb every word of that discussion, but I have read part of it and scanned the rest. I don't see a consensus for this move, either, and I think you need to demonstrate one more clearly. As you know, the way to achieve that is by RM.In the future, I for one would appreciate a wikilink in your editsum to the guideline or discussion that you feel provides the basis for a move. If there is no such guideline or discussion, your basis is fuzzy at best and you probably should do an RM. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point. In this case, there was confusion about the best title, but nobody arguing that PT-109 was related to the proper name Motor Torpedo Boat.  There was no sensible argument to keep it capped.  An RM discussion is in order, especially if that discussion progresses toward a good suggestion for a better name, which I hoped this set of moves would help encourage.  It's hard to see why Broichmore prefers the capped title, except that he disagrees with the WP:NCCAPS policy. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some how your twisting what I'm saying over a technical point. How can there be an objection to caps in this case when there is a project page entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters? How can Motor torpedo boat PT-109 be correct when it is a particular of Motor Torpedo Boat.
 * Meddling with titles here is patently wrong. Here's the sensible bit. This stems from this piece of contradictory nonsense in MOS:THECAPS, which needs changing. In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions. First and last words within a title, including a subtitle, are capitalized regardless of grammatical use. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language.This is not applied to Wikipedia's own articles, which are given in sentence case:[a] capitalize the first letter, and proper names (e.g., List of selection theorems, Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration).
 * Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 is a title, the fact that it is also an article title, is neither here or there.
 * The project is in English. We need to conform to the English language not the other way round.Otherwise it is original research or somesuch...
 * I don't know why your here even, You care nothing about Engineering or ships, or even the sanctity of the English language it would seem, just making your point about your preferred style... Broichmore (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved to Patrol... variants. Out of the three options at this RM, this had the most (and sufficient agreement). I'd recommend a separate RM to determine if the first article Patrol torpedo boat PT-109 should occupy PT-109, if desired. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 00:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

– In previous discussion, here, it was agreed that "Motor Torpedo Boat" is a Royal Navy term, not really applicable to US PT boats (type "Patrol, Torpedo"), and it has been observed that "patrol torpedo boat" is a rather uncommon term is sources, and that neither "motor torpedo boat" nor "patrol torpedo boat" is usually capitalized, when referring to US PT boats. Discussions did not converge on what the best new title should be, so I'm making this proposal. Maybe alternatives will come out. Minimally, the over-capitalization of the first two should be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 → Torpedo boat PT-109
 * Motor Torpedo Boat PT-59 → Torpedo boat PT-59
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-617 → Torpedo boat PT-617
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-796 → Torpedo boat PT-796
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-121 → Torpedo boat PT-121
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-337 → Torpedo boat PT-337
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-105 → Torpedo boat PT-105
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-41 → Torpedo boat PT-41
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-34 → Torpedo boat PT-34
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-346 → Torpedo boat PT-346
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-658 → Torpedo boat PT-658
 * Motor torpedo boat PT-37 → Torpedo boat PT-37
 * - can I clarify that this proposal only affects torpedo boats operated by the US Navy and that there is no intention to move any MTB articles? Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as clarified, that this only affects US Navy PT boats. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support although prefer PT-109 for the first (seems like it would be the common name). Will watch the discussion. Thanks Dicklyon for bringing order to K.Oz. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Randy. I presume you'd then move PT-109 to PT-109 (disambiguation).  I'd oppose that primarytopic takeover, but if there's enough support for it, it would work. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
 * It would be primary, and not really a takeover. PT-109, the common name for the ship, should probably be primary (I think it was ordained on the coconut). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By "takeover" I meant assigning a primarytopic to an ambiguous term that has a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All the other uses are derivative of (and most are mentioned in the article) PT-109.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Object You don't have the consensus to bulldoze this move into place. Broichmore (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the point of an RM discussion is to seek consensus. Nobody is bulldozing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon is correct, nobody needs a consensus to start an RM. If you oppose for content reasons, please make your case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentatively Agree Dcw2003 (talk)I wrote most of PT-109 and don't have a major problem with this, but why not just point PT-109 to the existing page, and do this for all the other pages as well. I also wrote nearly all of PT-157.  Redirects would be just as good on all these, but I hope the decision one way or the other is done quickly.  I always tell people about PT-109, not MTB 109, although the school, if you notice was called Motor Torpedo Boat School.  Nonetheless, nowadays and during Kennedy's Presidency, (which I lived through) everyone called the boat PT-109, as did Kennedy.  Its a great story and much of the research has been very recent!!    dcw2003, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for writing much of the page. Just to be clear, you would favor the title being PT-109 with no descriptor? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A primarytopic or primaryredirect takeover is pretty orthogonal to this proposal, and can be considered independently; concurrently even, if you want. It's got some opposition here already. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll stop lobbying. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, in light of confirmation that this applies to US PT boats only, including regularising the first two. I would not support change of PT-109 as the dab page - but prefer to follow recommendation at WP:NCS (example may need revising later) and for encyclopaedic consistency. Davidships (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose where was it observed that "patrol torpedo boat" is rather uncommon in the sources? I would support moves to Patrol torpedo boat PT-XXX, because that properly defines the type. "Torpedo boat" is too generic, and can refer to steam-driven torpedo boats pre-WWI/WWI to WWII petrol-engined jobs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to using "Patrol torpedo boat" if people prefer that. My observation on uncommonness is from these stats.  Maybe I misremember if we didn't look at that before. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose; "Torpedo boat" as being too vague and the common name they were known by should be used. In "PT 109" by William Doyle, for example, he writes they were known as a "motor torpedo boat or PT (patrol torpedo)". p. 21. After that he refers to them as "PT boats". I agree with Peacemaker and would support "Patrol torpedo boat PT-XXX". Kierzek (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we are talking about "correct terms" then this is also not correct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - See related discussion opened today at Village pump (policy). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For reasons, see my support for the alternative immediately below. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative: Patrol torpedo boat PT-109 etc.
vote on alternative if you like. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to independently support or oppose this option, if you wish.


 * 3 supports above expressed above by Kierzek, Peacemaker67, and Dicklyon. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But I'm changing to neutral as I prefer my original proposal, what with the "patrol" part being pretty uncommon in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as 1st choice. Mjroots (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per my reasons above. Davidships (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As this seems to be the more correct tern.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per arguments Llammakey (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don’t mind “torpedo boat” but this is a much better descriptive term. Regarding capitalization, we don’t call them Destroyers, Guided-Missile Cruisers, or Aircraft Carriers. It’s a descriptive term and not a proper noun.  C Thomas3   (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, changed per above and below, although for the first article would prefer PT-109 as the common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Randy, thanks. As before, there's no disagreement that PT-109 is the common name.  What you're asking for is a primary topic takeover.  I still request that that be taken up separately, so that the consensus here stays clear.  Or make a separate section and propose that additional move PT-109 → PT-109 (disambiguation). Dicklyon (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not now, thanks. Maybe in a couple of weeks as this RM has floated through enough topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This reflects the hull classification and designation and appears to reflect more common usage. The arguements being made are that this name is fairly specific to the WW2 era USN boats per discussion at WT:SHIPS (as noted in OP). However, it is not a title of a "work" (since there were several designs) and capping is not supported by the sources, per MOS:CAPS. It think that any discussion of PT-109 being an unique case (compared to the other boats) should be considered separately so as not to confuse matters. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative: Patrol Torpedo Boat PT-109 etc.
Look here at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy you can see the thinking behind how the USN defines designators for vessels of this type. It is consistent. First (the useage), second (the qualifier), third (a further method of subdivision). Example PHM, Patrol Missile Hydrofoil. You can see the applied logic through all the designators listed, and they are in caps. Yes, it's clunky, but it is by design. Presumably because its clunky its not often echoed in free speech or prose. As an aside it's well documented elsewhere that the US in common with the French revolutionaries favored any method different from the old order, justification enough not to follow the logic of similar in the Royal Navy. Broichmore (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the new and seemingly accurate wording in either case. For choice of upper or lower casing, per Broichmore and consistency with upper-casing at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll take what Broichmore says at face value, despite the only supporting evidence being a Wikipedia article (the encyclopedia anyone can edit). Per Official names, we are not required to adhere to military nomenclature right down to their idiosyncratic use of caps. I see little reader benefit in doing so. We have M4 Sherman, which, in its lead sentence, states that the official nomenclature is "Medium Tank, M4". The M1 Garand was officially "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1". I could go on, and a lot of articles about U.S. military materiel don't even bother to mention the official nomenclature in the prose. Apparently the editors of those articles didn't feel that precise agreement with military nomenclature was Wikipedia's highest priority, and I agree with them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – neither a proper name nor a work title as defined in guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently Patrol Torpedo Boat are proper nouns, which are covered under different MOS rules and allows for it to be fully titled when speaking about the classification. Broichmore (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose For reasons, see my support for the alternative immediately above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated above. Llammakey (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose all of the above. Needless formalism.  We should identify PT-109 just as that; it is clearly the primary use.  We should use the same construct, i.e. "PT-n" for other boats as well.  Where there are more than one uses and none is primary, then add a parenthetical such as "PT-n (torpedo boat)", but only where needed. There is no need for "motor", and no need for "patrol".  Kablammo (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We pretty much agreed (me and Randy at least) to defer the primarytopic question to a separate discussion. I would not object to your suggestion of PT-109 (torpedo boat) and such, but it's not aligned with the way Wikiproject Ships like to do things, so I don't think it will fly.  Anyway, we have otherwise unanimous support for the Patrol torpedo boat PT-109 approach already, it appears, even though "patrol torpedo boat" is relatively uncommon in sources.  I think I'll change my support to neutral on that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date format
I just noticed that a lot of mdy dates were added in a major rewrite/expansion awhile back. Don't American military articles always use dmy? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well is general, the US military uses the d/m/y format for correspondence. However, in common usage, including by the military when corresponding with civilians, the US common m/d/y format is used. What format did this article first use when written? Check that. That is what is usually continued for an article through its history, unless local consensus changes that (which, I have seen done, a few times). I personally prefer d/m/y, myself, for all military history articles. Kierzek (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per a quick survey of the history, the earliest dates were mdy. Then the article very gradually moved toward dmy, and was all dmy by the time of my arrival in 2014 – complete with a  template that is still in the article. It currently has a mix of the two formats. My impression was that American military articles had a consistent dmy convention, either de facto or established by a wikiproject. If that's not the case, I'm apathetic (and lazy) and I'll let somebody else deal with the current mix. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what do you think? Kierzek (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a toss-up. WP:MILFORMAT says articles on the modern US military use dmy, but otherwise seems to prefer mdy for US articles. MOS:DATEVAR states that the original format should be retained, but allows for editors to come up with a consensus for a particular format. Given it was dmy by five years ago, I suggest it is kept at dmy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Changes made where needed so the article is all one format; now all displaying in dmy. Also, I see there was actually a header note in place dated October 2012 to use dmy. Kierzek (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. BTW I saw your comment in my watchlist but didn't receive your ping since it was added after the fact. The ping has to be added in the same edit as the signature. Furthermore, if the initial comment is added with a typing error in either the ping or the signature, the ping is not sent when you fix the error. You basically have to add a second comment with the ping, self-revert and start over, or curse Wikipedia and forget the ping.This applies to any type of user notification from a comment, including  and  . Ain't it fun. See you around. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know how ping works. I added it merely as a courtesy notice, so you would know what we had discussed was done. Kierzek (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The addition of the ping predictably didn't generate a notification – as I said above –  so that doesn't make sense. Whatever. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  06:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I should elaborated on my scriveners error above. It should have read, "Yes, now I know how ping works. That's what I get for being in a hurry and using speaking text to write; well, I won't make that mistake or the ping error, again. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnamed crew
Unnamed crewman

If there is an unnamed crewman in the famous PT 109 picture sitting in the upper right side top row I might be able to give you his name. Cole.slawprincess (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kumana (Age of death)
New to all this Wikipedia stuff, so forgive me if I don't do this correctly, or if this is in the wrong place.

I have noticed a discrepancy between the age at death for Kumana on both this page and on Biuku Gasa and Eroni Kumana. This one lists 93 years, however the page on both Kumana and Gasa seem to list it as 96. Was wondering if this is due to conflicting sources, or a simple oversight. Bayley Sherlock (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)