Talk:Pioneer (paddle-steamer)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. No prejudice against a new RM with "(gun boat)" as the proposed disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Pioneer (1862) → Pioneer (paddle-steamer) – Article was moved (back) to Pioneer (1862) in accordance with Naming conventions (ships), which does indicate: "For a ship that does not have a hull and pennant number, and especially when more than one ship had the name, disambiguate the article name with the ship's launch year." This makes sense when you're talking about HMS Victorious (1785) and HMS Victorious (1895). However, in this case, following the convention gives you a title that gives you no indication what the article is about, except that it's something created in 1862. Is there any argument that the title Pioneer (1862) is superior to Pioneer (paddle-steamer) for any reason other than adherence to a non-binding convention that doesn't seem to have been written with this type of situation in mind? Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Seems logical to me. "1862" means nothing and is useless as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to work for the WikiProject when there's not much else to go by. But I agree it's not very helpful for readers, so a more descriptive disambiguator is desirable. I support the move as well. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The current title lead me to guess that this was an unnamed pioneer (a person) who did something in 1862, or perhaps 1862 was the year of his birth.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I won't oppose, since this is a one-off case and I don't suppose it really matters if it's going to upset people. I was the one who moved the name back to "Pioneer (1862)" to conform with naming conventions on Wikipedia for military boats. Pioneer was clearly a military boat, and anyone who reads Wikipedia articles on military boats will find the proposed title here is out of step. You could argue however, that although Pioneer was a military boat it needn't conform to the naming conventions, because back in 1862 New Zealand didn't have a navy. So it can't be named in full accordance with guidelines anyway, which would be something like "HMNZS Pioneer (1862)". Might Pioneer (gun boat) be better than Pioneer (paddle-steamer)? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2013 (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.