Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 5

US Navy Correspondence Manual vs. US Navy Style Guide, which takes presidence?
The US Navy Correspondence Manual still directs the use of all caps when spelling out a ship's name. Link to current manual: http://doni.daps.dla.mil/SECNAV%20Manuals1/5216.5.pdf

The Navy Style Guide says to Capitalize each first letter of a ships name and Initials and to Italicize the name when the correspondence is for "ALL HANDS" meaning external documents. http://www.navy.mil/submit/view_styleguide.asp

The US GPO Style Manual, para 11.6 says to Italicize the ship's name http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008.pdf

Most US Navy coorespondence still contains the ship's name in all CAPS and not Italicized. It seems that the in the US Navy, the Navy Coorespondence Manual, although most likely incorrect and needing an update, takes presidence over the GPO Style Manual and the US Navy Style Guide.

Any feedback appreciated? 24.153.34.98 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither is particularly relevant to Wikipedia, since we follow our own manual of style - standard practice on Wikipedia is to italicize the name and only capitalize the initial letters - for example, USS Enterprise or HMS Emperor of India. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to which has precedence within the Navy. I think I can say that at Wikipedia, neither of those have precedence over WP:NC-SHIP primarily because Wikipedia deals with all the world's navies, not just the US Navy.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, Wikipedia guidelines MOS:ALLCAPS specifically prohibits using uppercase, even going so far as to say that uppercase in sources should be reduced to title case. There are a very few exceptions (acronyms, the tetragrammaton, interlinear glossing of grammatical morphemes and transcription of logograms).  The bizarre typography of the US navy isn't one of the exceptions.  I note that the US Navy used to put all official correspondence in uppercase until June 2013 - | according to the BBC. Shem (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to edit the convention
Just so everyone knows, there is currently a discussion at the WP:Article titles policy page to amend WP:SHIPNAME. See: WT:AT. I am not sure why the discussion isn't taking place here on this talk page (since this is the page that is proposed to be amended) ... but, as long as it has been started at WT:AT, it is probably best to continue the discussion over there. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of moves
Hi, in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles. It appears that such moves have been made with significant oversight regarding the naming convention. I've discussed the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and it's been suggested that the pages should be moved back. What does WP:NCS think about the proposed moves? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for updating Naming conventions (ships)
The following was posted at WT:AT...


 * Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update.


 * The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update.


 * Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I re-post it here so you know the discussion is occurring. Blueboar (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

hull numbers & italics?
For vessels known only by their hull number (e.g. NR-1), should its use in an article be italicized given that it's a designation rather than a name? Also, does it matter whether a ship was commissioned or not with regards to using italics? —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  21:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (ships). Ship names are always in italics; commissioned or not.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
What’s the reason as to why ships are italicized? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk |  contribs  ) 04:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tradition, I think. Pick up any book about ships - whether it be highly factual, like Jane's Fighting Ships, or entirely fictional - like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - and you'll see that the ship names are uniformly italicised. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think User:PapiDimmi is referring to Wikipedia practice. I tried to look it up, but could only find discussion about italicizing the article title, not ship names in general. However, a number of other names (e.g. books, movies) are italicized in Wikipedia. I think it's a good practice. Tupsumato (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tupsumato - it can enhance clarity and avoid ambiguities. Davidships (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about using definite articles with ship names
I am copyediting an article that includes ships' names. In this article the name is sometimes preceded by "the" and sometimes not - "the Agincourt" vs just "Agincourt". Is there a preference for one or the other, or is consistency the only rule? I looked through the archives of this page, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus. To be clear - I'm talking about the text of the article, not the title, and not before a prefix like HMS. Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (ships). Not prohibited except when the definite article would precede a ship prefix (HMS, USS, etc); the stated preference is to avoid use the definite article with ship names.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Question
Using the definite article with ship's name when the ship is not the object of the sentence. For example is it: "The USS Hornet jet passed overhead." or "USS Hornet jet passed overhead."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.17.141 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No prefix after first use; ship names always in italics; in this case because the sentence is not talking about Hornet but is talking about a jet, the definite article may be used. Alternately, the sentence may be rewritten: "Hornet jet passed overhead."
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree needs apostrophe, but "Hornet jet passed overhead" only if the ship had a single jet; otherwise perhaps "a jet from USS Hornet passed overhead" or, if there were definitely more than one, "one of USS Hornet jets passed overhead". Davidships (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for the USS. The italics denote that it is the ship were are talking about. so "a jet from Hornet passed overhead or "one of Hornet's jets passed overhead. Llammakey (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been many ships named Hornet and other things take italics also; but in any case, whether any prefix is needed will depend on context and whether this is the first mention. Davidships (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of "the + ship's name" in Star Trek
A discussion is now underway here primarily regarding in universe and/or common naming usage vs wikipedia as an encyclopaedia and this Manual of Style's advice. Over the last few months, I have edited dozens of ship's pages in accordance with the advice/preference given in 4 Using ship names in articles. However, some recent edits to Star Trek ships, in particular to those related to Enterprise, have led to this discussion I mentioned. Just thought I would let you know so that interested persons from here could participate in the discussion there as well. Thanks. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading up on the subject, it would seem that the current MoS is essentially copying current US Navy practice. That practice is certainly not universal. The Bounty and the Titanic, for example, would look strange without their definite articles.


 * "The official name is RMS Titanic. If Zephyr is the British naval vessel, HMS Zephyr. If you're referring to them, it's common to write the Titanic or the Zephyr." Word Reference forum


 * "Which sounds better? Ben and Luke saw the Millennium Falcon as they entered the dusty hanger. or Ben and Luke saw Millennium Falcon as they entered the dusty hanger. Change it to Han's Ford pickup and see how it works. Ben and Luke saw the Ford pickup as they entered the dusty hanger. It needs the definite article because you are referring to a specific vehicle." Absolute Write forum

Post #10 has a convincing explanation that shows it depends on whether you are referring to a specific vehicle rather than merely naming the vehicle that is the subject being talked about.

I think as long as US Navy ships are being discussed, the USN Mos can be applied. But for ships outside that context, I think we really should be considering how English is used in a more globalist context. The USN is not the authority on ship names outside its own command.


 * Ship names: Italicize the first reference to the name of a ship is formal (e.g., the USS Topeka (CLG-8)). All subsequent reference should use an abbreviated form (Topeka). Remember: ships are “she,” countries are “it.” USN War College style guide


 * ship names Use the definite article the before a ship name, or ship type preceding a ship name. Also use the full name of the ship (without the USS) on second reference. Do not use the personal pronouns she or her. U.S. Sailors wash down the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in the Atlantic Ocean May 15, 2012. The George H.W. Bush was underway on its first deployment. DIMOC style guide (US)

The National Geographic style guide on ship names leaves it freely to the author to choose definite articles.

At least two reasonably official US based style guides clearly allow for the use of the definite article in association with ship names. I suspect the WP MoS is out of step with the world. It certainly seems to require odd word choices at times. Rhialto (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It would seem (as probably occurs within many different Wikipedia pages) that often the widespread application of any given consistent style is often, perhaps, poorly achieved. Given that the millions of articles here are edited by probably a similar number of contributors, it is inevitable that inconsistencies arise (a thing that the MOS as a guideline therefore endeavours to reduce). A quick glance at Ship, for example, reveal inconsistencies of ship article and prefix style within a single page, as also occurs in pages such as Santa Maria (ship), RMS Queen Mary, Endurance (1912 ship), Mary Celeste, RMS Lusitania, and HMS Endeavour. However articles of very famous ships do show a style and usage highly consistent with these guidelines. For example, when doing a Ctrl-F search on Titanic, it is referred to as simply "Titanic" way more often than "the Titanic" (only 2 instances on the entire page). On the Sinking of the RMS Titanic, again there is a prevalent use of the ship's name without "the" (even despite the use of "the" in the article's name). Similarly, HMS Victory is again only referred to as "the Victory" in 2 instances on the entire page. Furthermore, in featured articles from Category:FA-Class Ships articles, USS Arizona (BB-39) has no instances of "the Arizona", German battleship Bismarck has no instances of "the Bismarck", HMAS Melbourne (R21) has no instances of "the Melbourne", and Japanese battleship Yamato has no instances of "the Yamato" to name a few. And yes, while many FA class articles do deal with military ships (perhaps because they are the ones that most excite/enthuse editors to improve them to that level), I would argue that it seems clear that the "best" ship articles already out there in Wikipedia-land consistently do not use "the" in a manner compliant with the naming guidelines on this page. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't use wikipedia articles to demonstrate how the definite article is used in the real world, because such articles inevitably tend to follow (or be edited towards following) the manual of style; citing examples from such articles doesn't prove anything in a discussion about how the manual of style should be, because it ends up being a circular argument ("we should keep the existing rule, even if it doesn't reflect actual English language usage in the wild, because articles that have been edited to reflect the existing rule follow it"). When I was looking for examples of real-world usage of the definite article in ship names, I was specifically avoiding wikipedia usage. Your comment about poor editing standards doesn't really apply in this case. In fact, my primary focus was to find real-world manuals of style, which can be reasonably taken to be independent of any influence by Wikipedia. Of those I found that demonstrate an opinion, DIMOC mandates the article and uses it in its examples, the USN War College doesn't specifically call it out either way, but does use it in its examples, and the USN (the guide wikipedia currently imitates) specifically prohibits it. Real-world usage outside of wikipedia uses it quite often (but not always). Whatever the descriptivist grammar usage rule is, it certainly is neither "never use it" nor "always use it". Rhialto (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fast patrol boats / fast attack craft class naming?
Re these renames from "fast patrol boat" to "patrol boat": The Nasty / Tjeld and Bold classes might also be affected.
 * Dark-class fast patrol boat
 * Brave-class fast patrol boat
 * Gay-class fast patrol boat

I can't find the discussion or the cited naming guideline for these renames, but IMHO they should be renamed back as "fast patrol boats". The point is that these weren't merely patrol boats, they were fast patrol boats: a technically distinct class where size and endurance were sacrificed, with the aid of the new gas turbine engines (or ultra-light diesels), in order to achieve a speed faster than anything else on water. The UK classes aren't (and rightly so) even listed in the UK section of patrol boat. These are a notable group, even if the early "fast patrol boat"s were later replaced by the better-known and more specific fast attack craft. "Fast" here isn't just a trivial decoration, it's a defining aspect. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote is : "Ship type - The type of ship that comprises the class: aircraft carrier, trawler, frigate, icebreaker. Do not be overly specific in the type"

− And fast patrol boat is an over-specification of patrol boat. Fast Patrol Boat redirects to patrol boat. All of what you just said could be said within the article explaining why they were more powerful than other patrol vessels, however, they remain patrol vessels. Not frigates or icebreakers, etc. Adding an adjective in front of their name doesn't take away from what their job was. I'd lump this in with offshore and inshore patrol vessels. Unnecessary title disambiguation. Just because they're not in a list somewhere doesn't mean they cannot be added later. Llammakey (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're basing all of this on what a Wikipedia article says? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What? I'm basing this off policy. Fast patrol boat redirects to patrol boat. Fast is an adjective, much like "light aircraft carrier" and "inshore patrol vessel". That's over specification in the title. I'm just applying the policy. If you don't like the policy, do a request for comment and seek consensus to change the policy. Llammakey (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO using a single adjective in the class name is not over-specification; the naval history is full of light cruisers, heavy cruisers and such. What do the reliable sources say in case of these vessels? Tupsumato (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jane's / Conway's describe them as "fast patrol boats". There's quite a bit of coverage of the Bold class in books on early gas turbines - again, describing them as "fast patrol boats" and making a distinction from preceding boats, because the extra power allowed them to be so much faster.
 * The point of the turbine engines, or the Deltics, is that they produced a boat with the speed of the preceding Gay-class, the "Spitfires of the Sea" or US PT boats, known to be fragile in heavy weather, and combine it with the size and range of a Fairmile.
 * When missiles developed as an attack weapon, the boats changed to match (see the Komar-class) and became FACs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't use light cruiser. We use cruiser. In the policy it states not to use light aircraft carrier. You are arguing to change the entire policy on the opinion of two people. I don't care one whit either way. But then I'm going to have to go undo the moves for all the inshore and offshore patrol vessels I did, the armoured cruiser, protected cruiser, large destroyers and patrol cutters, etc. Llammakey (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Llammakey - the naming conventions are pretty clear on this. Any changes to the policy ought to be done in a wider venue. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't use light aircraft carrier, true. Well, obviously we do - just not as a qualifier in class names (and so why has "fast patrol boat" thus been removed from the article body text too?).
 * But we also call some of the helicopter carrier classes here, like the Iwo Jimas, something other than "aircraft carrier", we call them amphibious assault ships, even though they're helicopter-only and don't have any sort of landing dock.
 * Also would you please stop calling this a "policy". WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, naming conventions are guidelines. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Categories are not article titles. Yes helicopter carrier. Not helicopter aircraft carrier. Just saying, you want to set a precedence for the "convention". Next time the next offshore patrol vessel or fast patrol cutter article comes along and they say that they have some type of improved engine or gun or stealth technology...well so much for class article convention. Llammakey (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

hatnote
I have restored the hatnote. But...

Does it point to the correct place?

For the most part, when a ship article has a ship infobox, the article title is styled automatically. For those relatively rare occasions that automatic title styling doesn't work, and an editor comes here, perhaps the hatnote should refer those editors to Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide where there is title-styling specific information.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion by BilCat
Having been reverted by with the edit summary "undiscussed changes which removed key info,, forced project sidebars down", I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. What "key info" do you believe to have been removed from the page? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The note that stated, "For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see Infobox ship begin." Such changes really need to be discussed beforehand, where you would explain why it isn't needed there, and get a consensus to remove it. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, changes to the layout of a page, including removing a hatnote, do not need to be discussed beforehand; WP:BRD applies. Secondly, that hatnote was not removed. It was merely reformatted such that it would appear as a hatnote on mobile. So why the reversion? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bilcat. You want to change something on that page, including adding another template, you discuss it first. Llammakey (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. As far as I can tell, all the IP did was replace this:
 * :For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see.
 * With this:
 * The result is exactly the same. Can someone clarify what the objection to using the template is? Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He also added the template naming conventions, pushing the Ships template further down the article. That is what I am objecting to. If the IP wants to add that template, then whether the Ships template should be kept or modified and so on should be discussed. Otherwise there will be a wall of templates along the side of the article. Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If one looks through some of those pages have, some don't.  I think that if that template is to be kept, it should be placed below the side bar.  Were it up to me I would not include.
 * As for the other change, there is indeed a difference though it is for browsers and search engines and the like and not necessarily for readers. Here is the output of the  template:
 * compared to the original:
 * For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see.
 * This was a proper and justified change that should be retained. If there are no objections, I shall restore this portion of IP editor's change.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Trappist's suggestion about the tlx template. Llammakey (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to your concern that many pages in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions do not have the sidebar, that is no surprise as about a third of them are not included in the template. Amongst those that are in the template, there's only a few without the sidebar apart from those in the language/country-specific section for some reason.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Trappist's suggestion about the tlx template. Llammakey (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to your concern that many pages in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions do not have the sidebar, that is no surprise as about a third of them are not included in the template. Amongst those that are in the template, there's only a few without the sidebar apart from those in the language/country-specific section for some reason.


 * On your proposal that naming conventions be excluded, that would seem to defeat sidebars' purpose of "facilitat[ing] navigation". And why would the WikiProject sidebar take preference when this is a naming convention page, not a WikiProject page?


 * You're right about the effect of for2. The other example of its use that is more apparent to the average user is it affects the appearance of the hatnote on mobile. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that some pages in have the template and some don't, that was merely an observation.  I am not at all concerned that some of those pages don't have the template.
 * On the topic of the sidebar, I have not made any proposals, I have only expressed an opinion. Please do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken.  At the top of the project page,  links to the category page where all naming convention pages are listed.  That is sufficient to facilitate navigation.  I see the sidebar as redundant.
 * If the sidebar is to be retained, I think it should take the inferior position because when you are here on a matter pertaining to a ship article, then you are treating this page as a WP:SHIPS page so navigation to other WP:SHIPS pages should be offered first. Of course, one could say that when you are here on a matter of naming conventions, the naming conventions sidebar should be offered first.  There is no getting round that; one sidebar must come first.  I choose the ships sidebar.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There should be no doubt that the naming conventions sidebar should appear on a naming convention. Consistency is necessary so as to "facilitate navigation". And if preference is to be given to one sidebar over the other, naming conventions is the natural choice as this article is not an advice page and does not belong to a WikiProject.
 * As you are objecting to my edit, do you have an alternative proposal? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have provided no reason that WP:BRD does not reply. In fact, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to WP:BOLD which is explicit in saying that it applies to the editing of policies and guidelines, albeit recognizing that the phrase "but please be careful" is of particular import in such cases. WP:PGCHANGE also makes clear that while discussions should generally precede "substantive changes" to a policy or guideline, "Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. [emphasis added]" Given that we are discussing the changing of a hatnote's semantic formatting and the addition of an navigational template, that clearly qualifies.
 * There should be no doubt that the naming conventions sidebar should appear on a naming convention. Consistency is necessary so as to "facilitate navigation". And if preference is to be given to one sidebar over the other, naming conventions is the natural choice as this article is not an advice page and does not belong to a WikiProject.
 * As you are objecting to my edit, do you have an alternative proposal? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have provided no reason that WP:BRD does not reply. In fact, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to WP:BOLD which is explicit in saying that it applies to the editing of policies and guidelines, albeit recognizing that the phrase "but please be careful" is of particular import in such cases. WP:PGCHANGE also makes clear that while discussions should generally precede "substantive changes" to a policy or guideline, "Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. [emphasis added]" Given that we are discussing the changing of a hatnote's semantic formatting and the addition of an navigational template, that clearly qualifies.
 * You have provided no reason that WP:BRD does not reply. In fact, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to WP:BOLD which is explicit in saying that it applies to the editing of policies and guidelines, albeit recognizing that the phrase "but please be careful" is of particular import in such cases. WP:PGCHANGE also makes clear that while discussions should generally precede "substantive changes" to a policy or guideline, "Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. [emphasis added]" Given that we are discussing the changing of a hatnote's semantic formatting and the addition of an navigational template, that clearly qualifies.


 * How can you attempt to order without qualification that "You want to change something on that page, including adding another template, you discuss it first"? (I should note that I do not intend the question to be rhetorical.) "[C]laim[ing], whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added" would seem to be an example of "ownership behaviour", especially when you have a history of making reversions on this page with the sole rationale of the edit having "no consensus". 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wikilawyering me with an ip address. I'm just going to assume bad faith on your part. Have a nice day. Llammakey (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have made an accusation against me. The least you can do is back it up as I am assuming that you were not attempting to be intentionally deceitful. What "key info" was removed? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I answered your question already. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to where the question was answered, if you did? I still do not know what "key info" was removed. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Top of this post, which your IP address has already responded to. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "The note that stated, 'For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see Infobox ship begin.'"? Because we've already established that that was not removed, have we not? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, so why are you asking a question to which you already know the answer? - BilCat (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So if that wasn't the reason why you reverted, then what was? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It was one of 2 reasons I reverted. And please stop pinging me - I'm watching the page. - BilCat (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated 'useful' templates removed
From #Using_ship_class_names_in_articles, I have removed templates mentioned 'useful' sclass}, sclass2. The produce non-hyphened class, type links while these should be hyphened (adjective). They have been deprecated for years, and now have been removed from article space. sclass- and sclass2- are their promoted replacements. - DePiep (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ship class articles
The first sentence in the "Ship class articles" section says "Articles about a ship class should be named ". But this is apparently not always true, as it says later on that a class is sometimes not named after the lead ship. This should be easy to fix and I'll do so.

Then we have this: "Note the separation of submarine as a separate link..." But this contradicts MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Is that what we want?

And I see no advice as to naming a class when there are multiple possible names, like Hotel-class submarine (the NATO reporting name) vs Project 658 (the Soviet Navy name). Maybe this isn't necessary and we just follow WP:COMMONNAME.

Also why do we have two overlapping sections on ship class names, "Naming articles about ship classes" and "Ship class articles"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On your second point, my understanding is that two links next to each other are fine, but more than that runs afoul of SEAOFBLUE. FWIW, I've routinely used these templates and have never once had a problem at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ships with initials in their name
How to name the W.J. Pirrie or W. J. Pirrie? -Broichmore (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In case of commercial ships, I usually check classification society etc. databases. All cases I have encountered have been with spaces between initials (in my mind, W. J. would be short for "Willie Jillie" whereas I'd interpret W.J. as "WillieJillie"). Tupsumato (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle I agree that a space is better for initials of people (WP article names are almost always like that, unless it is a stage-name). Sources may vary though according to the house-style adopted and over time (and some omit the periods altogether) - that includes classification societies. Strictly speaking it is the national registration records, where published, that show the correct form - and certainly not what is actually painted on the ship! Davidships (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:INITIALS says to use spaces for names of people if that's any help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amendment
There is currently a debate on Talk:Capture of the Anne on whether "the" should be permitted in the title of the article. IMO, I believe that this should be permitted, however the editor who wishes to push this issue, appears to be using the naming convention below to justify the proposed page move (rename to Capture of Anne).

I may be wrong amd happy to admit if wrong, however I believe the the ship article name should be able use "The" where is "Capture of the XXXX" et, if no other name could be agreed upon. The articles Sinking of the RMS Titanic,Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Wreck of the RMS Titanic, Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Petrel have also be identified by the editor as having to renamed to remove "The" due to conflict with Ship naming convention. I also raise that alot of article for battles are titled "Battle of the XXXX". I would like to facilitate this so we can all move forward. My suggested change is as follows:

Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * oppose - bad grammar. We do not call the company Nike, "the Nike" nor "the Wal-Mart" unless used as an adjective, such as "the Nike shoes" or "the Wal-Mart store". In the case you are proposing, "Capture of the Anne ship" would be a better title, or even better, "capture of the ship Anne", where Anne becomes noun and ship is used as the descriptor. Llammakey (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The RM mentioned is currently taking place at Talk:Capture of the Anne. FYI - wolf  12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thank you. In some instances we must be able to permit "the" in front of a ships name in an article's name i.e. "Wreck of the RMS Titanic". I would not support an article's name starting with "The Anne". If "Capture of the Anne" is accepted by the community, we should be able to deal with it in the naming convention. Do you have any suggestions that would appease your concerns? I would like us as a community to come to some solution to deal with this matter or use of "the" in descriptive articles names. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how would "Capture of the Anne ship" be justifiable based on English grammar? I'm seeing this all the time in the news (e.g. "The CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent (left) conducts seismic surveys following the USCGC Healy icebreaker.") and it just feels... wrong? It's not like we're saying "According to Trump president..." either. However, if you swap the name and descriptor around, then it feels natural. I could live with "the icebreaker Healy". Tupsumato (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Oh? What's this...? Forum shopping? (Yes, I'm the "other editor"). I'm still not sure why you accused me wanting to change the names of articles about "battles", but I see you brought it up here and well. Just to be clear, this is about ships. The RM is about a ship's name. The naming guideline I cited, (the one you are desperately trying to change all of a sudden), is about ships; "Naming conventions (ships)". I never mentioned "battles" once. So hopefully we can put that to rest now. I see you brought your little list of Titanic articles again. I have a list;


 * 1) Capture of HMS Boxer
 * 2) Capture of HMS Frolic
 * 3) Capture of HMS Epervier
 * 4) Capture of HMS Penguin
 * 5) Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant
 * 6) Capture of HMS Dominica
 * 7) Capture of HMS Macedonian
 * 8) Capture of HMS Savage
 * 9) Capture of HMS Nautilus
 * 10) Capture of HMS Guerriere
 * 11) Sinking of HMS Peacock
 * 12) Sinking of HMS Avon
 * 13) Sinking of HMS Reindeer
 * 14) Sinking of HMS York
 * 15) Sinking of HMS Java
 * 16) Sinking of HMS E3
 * 17) Sinking of HMS Niger
 * 18) Sinking of HMS Penelope
 * 19) Sinking of HMS Ark Royal
 * 20) The sinking of HMS Oxley

Not one of them has the definite article "the" before the prefix HMS, like the guideline says. Same goes for ships names, either without a prefix, or if the prefix is not being used. I'm not sure why you are so vehemently opposed to the RM, that you're now trying to rewrite a guideline, but its unnecessary. The guideline is supported by established practice. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time editing ship articles knows that on numerous articles, numerous editors have removed the definite article "the" when preceding a ship's name, anywhere in the ships's article. At least, that's been my experience over the years. - wolf  12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - No, I am attempting to have the matter resolved holistically here, if possible, seeing as you have invoked the naming convention as the issue. I know calling "The Her Majesty's Ship" is incorrect terminology. What I am trying to do is trying to form an overall consensus within the naming convention that would permit the use of "the" before a ship name, only in specific examples i.e. "Passengers of the RMS Titanic", otherwise as a community we are likely to be discussing this again and again. The naming convention also needs to be updated that within the article that "the Anne" is not accepted as the convention only specifically relates to the lead. Please try to keep this civil and I am sure that we can come to more of a consensus. Remember this is not personal. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When I previously noted what clearly appearred to me as canvassing, and now forum shopping, it wasn't personal, I was just calling it as I saw it. That said, there is no need to change this guideline. There hasn't been any ongoing or widespread problems related to it. I used it to support an RM, an RM that you oppose, and before that RM discussion is even near conclusion, you're suddenly here trying to get the guideline changed to support your position there. That, as they say, is just not cricket. - wolf  10:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Unfortunately we do have issues as an editor is moving articles with "the" in the name of the article. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes... and those moves are proper as they are supported by guidelines. Some people don't like it and seem to be getting all panicky about it, but that editor hasn't done anything wrong. - wolf  11:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, do not use "the" before "HMS" or its variants, as "the Her Majesty's ship" is not correct.

It is common to use "the" before names of vessels (and "HMS " is not part of the name) and apparently there is one UK style guide to that effect, as was pointed out to me on Wikipedia not long ago (I no longer remember where and I'm not going to go digging for it). Ships are not people and it is routine to see uses such as "the Titanic" or "the Queen Mary".

Finally, we suffer from too much formalism. There is no need to entitle an article as "Sinking of the RMS Titanic — "Sinking of the Titanic" is perfectly adequate. Nor do we need to use prefixes such as "HMS" or "USS" or "SS" every time we mention a vessel's name.  Just as we don't need to link repeated references to a ship, we do not need to restate the prefix on uses after the first one.

Kablammo (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Answering following comment: it is not grammatically incorrect to use the definite article with a proper noun.  "The Waldorf".  "The White House".  "The QE2"/ The Queen Elizabeth 2.  The Titanic.  Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose this proposed change to the naming standard for ships. Ship names are proper nouns and as such it is grammaticly incorrect to use the definite article before one.  Other style guides notwithstanding, I believe we have this right here. - Nick Thorne talk  04:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral I oppose the current proposal because it is not succinct enough, but I agree with the need to loosen the current guidelines. The definite article is commonly used before a ship's name. Whether that is grammatically wrong or not depends entirely on the context and it is incorrect to stick to the rigid line that there should not be an article before a name. The speaker, in context, could easily be referring to the ship but omitting words that are assumed to be there and which therefore affect the structure of the remaining sentence. Hence "The sinking of the ship that was called Rainbow Warrior" becomes "The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior", and that is perfectly correct. Another way to approach this is to look at common usage. "The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior" is more commonly used in reliable sources than "The sinking of Rainbow Warrior". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Partial support; partial oppose, with following alternate proposal:
 * Reason: We should not use the definite article before a prefix which, if spelled out with the name, would be ungrammatical ("the Her Majesty's ship x") but it may be used with another prefix ("the Steam  Ship y"), or with the actual name (and the prefix is not part of a ship's name).  Kablammo (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * oppose - once again, a ship's name is a noun, much like a company name. They should be treated the same in professional language. Llammakey (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'd like to visit Empire State Building sometime, but couldn't afford to stay at Waldorf-Astoria." Kablammo (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, Empire State Building has "building" in its name, but I had to click on the link to see what Waldorf-Astoria was. I assumed it was a town. However, if you had put "the hotel Waldorf-Astoria", that would have proved your point better. The Empire State Building has the descriptor in its name. Empire State is the adjective in that case, and therefore place a "the" before it would be completely acceptable. However, I see no reason to put a "the" in front of Waldorf-Astoria. In my opinion it sounds better, more professional. Like Starbucks or Nike or Wal-Mart or Canada or United Arab Emirates (which by the way, should have a the in front of it by your rules all the time, the same as United States).Llammakey (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are trying to impose consistency where it does not exist in the world outside Wikipedia. I don't see where such a grammatical rule exists.  As in my proposal, we should leave use of the definite article optional (except the HMS case, where it should not be used).   Kablammo (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What about MV The Second Snark and other such cases? Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support intent but No change needed, just thoughtful application: There's a lot of arguing here about English grammar as if it is black and white. While it may indeed be true that the the norm is for "the" not to be used before proper nouns, there are a considerable number of exceptions across many fields, sometimes with no apparent reason (eg climb Annapurna but the Eiger), and there is no reason for artificial rigidity in relation to ships - especially where it is a field in which a wide range of writers, scholarly as well as popular, use "the" before ships actual names at least sometimes (I say "actual names" because the question of use before prefixes is different, and ought not to be so controversial).  That said, WP is perfectly entitled to establish preferences, but there should be flexibility to allow valid alternatives - and that is exactly what it already does - if the quote from the current convention at the head of this discussion had continued just one line further, we would have got to:  As I wrote on Talk:Capture of the Anne, "I think that this is a textbook example of why WP:SHIPNAME wisely has "Generally,....." and "[Capture of Anne] is full of ambiguity without the article and, to me, just sounds strange. I support the omission of the article as the default case, but even an italicised Anne doesn't really quite get there." Davidships (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for pointing that out. Do you believe that we could provide some examples of where "the" is potentially able to be used, as examples really help explain what a statement is intending. Just like pictures trying to explain a statement, sometimes this is the trigger needed for full understanding? We don't have examples for "Passengers of the Titanic" where "the" is used beforehand and also for the preferred none use of "the Anne" within the article itself? Maybe with a slight tinker of the guideline, it might provide better understanding between editors. Sometime not being said can lead to bigger issues, as currently being played out. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd thought I'd respond to you personally since you seem to be one of those users who tries to get people banned if you do not like how the discussion is going. Perfectly good places to use a definite article before a ship name is where the ship name is the descriptor, such as "the Unicorn prisoners", or "the Titanic shipwreck". Those would be good places to use a definite article before a ship name. Like talking about the "the Nike shoes I purchased" or "the Starbucks coffee I tasted". Hence the "generally". I'm not sure what grade of elementary school you made it through, but that is how grammar works. You have yourself a nice day. Llammakey (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If others haven't made good suggestions by Monday (when I'm back from a weekend away), I'll try to do that. Davidships (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For info. Llamakey has moved several articles on ship sinkings by removing "the" from the title whilst this discussion is ongoing and a consensus is being formed. I've asked nicely that they be returned to their original titles but have been refused. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we have an administrator, please review response to Mjroots on User_talk:Llammakey. The response provided is inappropriate and shows a lack of respect for admin. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I took ten minutes in my personal library and pulled eleven books from a variety of maritime authors in the Canada, the US, and the UK. In that same 10 minutes I found that 10 of the 11 use “the [ship name]”, in other words, they place the definite article before the name of the ship. In no particular order, they are:
 * I. C. B. Dear (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (2d ed. 2005);
 * Richard Woodman, The History of the Ship (2002);
 * R. Gardiner (ed.), The Golden Age of Shipping (1994);
 * John Townsend Gibbons, Palaces that Went to Sea (1990);
 * Walter Lord, The Night Lives On (1986);
 * Robert Wall, Ocean Liners (1997);
 * Alan Villiers, Men, Ships, and the Sea (1962);
 * William H. Miller, Famous Ocean Liners (1987);
 * Ewan Corlett, The Revolution in Merchant Shipping 1950-1980 (National Maritime Museum, 1981);
 * Frank Braynard, By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them, The Life and Ships of William Francis Gibbs (1968).

The one outlier of the eleven I looked at is W.A. Baker and Tre Tryckare, The Engine Powered Vessel (1965), which in my short review appears not to use the definite article.

Noted maritime authors, the National Maritime Museum, maritime publishers, the Smithsonian, the National Geographic Society, the New York Times, and the BBC all use the definite article before ship names.

It is safe to say they know something about grammar.

Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do any of the books you mentioned happen to be encyclopaedias? Because that's what this project is. Different standards, different guidelines. Unlike those books, where mistakes such as adding the definite article "the" before a shipname can't be corrected, WP can, and is, updated with corrections all the time. WP is not paper, your OSE argument has no merit, and this isn't the preference of a single author or editor, but a guideline, created, vetted and implemented by a consensus of this community. A guideline that is also supported by the numerous editors that remove the word "the" from before ship names, from numerous articles, going back for some time now, making it basically a standard practice. Not sure why a handful of editors are suddenly jumping all over this, apparently bringing personal grudges, using canvassing and forum shopping, threantening to abuse admin rights, etc., etc., etc.... all to have a simple and proper writing style changed. Strange times indeed... - wolf  05:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See below. Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Point of order, . There has been no "threat to abuse admin rights". I was invited to misuse my administrative privileges, and declined to do so. I also made a polite request, which was also declined. If you have issues with the way I've conducted myself in this matter, you know where WP:ANI is. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - I believe he is referring to me, for opposing the moving of the article "Capture of the Anne" to "Capture of Anne". I then crossed the line apparently trying to seek experts opinion by pinging them and then trying to arrange a resolution by strengthening the guideline. I don't know what personal grudges I am alleged to have towards them, as I would be happy to work with them in the future, regardless of differing opinions. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at your contributions,, and see nothing that concerns me. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Answering a question posed above, and expanding on my previous list of ships:


 * I have started a user page for my library, and populated it with volumes by 20 additional authors who use the construct "the [ship name]". That list can be found at User:Kablammo/Library.  Every one of these authors use that format.  If you question their credentials, refer to the wikipedia pages for those with such pages, or google their names, or search Wikipedia for cites to their works.  They are all authoritative, and include academics and popular historians.  And together they have written hundreds of books on naval history.


 * And yes, some of these books are encyclopedias.


 * I cannot understand why it is so important to impose a solution to something that is not a problem. It is true that some writers do not use the definite article.  Samuel Eliot Morison and Barrett Tillman appear to be examples, at least in some cases.  (It is easier to prove the presence of a "the" before a ship name than its absence.)  Some use both.  But when individuals with the qualifications of Norman Polmar and Bernard Ireland, and publishers like the United States Naval Institute, Jane's, and the National Maritime Museum use that construct in their works, we should be able to tolerate it here.


 * Personally, I avoid use of "the". But others use it, and that usage is correct.


 * Haven't we all got better things to do that fight over this? Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have tried to give this a comprehensive health-check, including reviewing how the Guidelines have developed over time - and end with my personal conclusions
 * That many of the leading authors on maritime matters, in books by reputable (including academic) publishers, made hundreds, probably thousands, of "mistakes", which even remained unchanged if the book was "reprinted with corrections" or received a subsequent edition, and that such authors, editors and publishers all shared a lamentable grasp of English grammar is a ludicrous proposition (I would call these "reliable sources" rather than "other stuff"). At least one of the books mentioned earlier has been described as an encyclopedia and has all the hallmarks of one - 3700 separate entries in my copy ranging from one-paragraph definitions to four-page illustrated articles. Be that as it may, the question raised here is not about what is correct or not correct in a general sense, but about what guidance is given on the style or styles to be adopted in the titling and content of WP articles.  This has already been through several iterations.


 * The history


 * From 11/2004 (and perhaps somewhere else before) until 2012 the guidance read:


 * In July 2012 in this edit (summary: copyedit) it was changed to:


 * In October 2012 in this edit changed to:


 * The very brief discussion in 2012 by less than a handful of editors (none of whom have as yet commented this time) is here and might, at a pinch, be described as a consensus.


 * Finally, in February 2013, without further discussion, it reached the current form:


 * More recently, this question elicited the response stating that it is


 * In other words, the use of the definite article is permitted, but is generally to be avoided.


 * That is a prejudicial summing up. Here consensus was not reached over not using the definite article, and yet some style obsessed fascist has nevertheless changed the actual policy page anyway to say otherwise, and ban its use. Why and who? Broichmore (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The text above is not a summing up of anything, it is a recital of the actual history of the Guidance article's text. "Prejudicial" to whom or what?  Which Policy page are you referring to?  If you check its history page you will be able to identify the editor that you object to so vehemently. Davidships (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Application of Guidelines


 * @Newm30 partly in response to your request
 * I think that there is no controversy in relation to article names comprising just the name of the ship, with or without ship prefix or DAB in parenthesis (and indeed irrelevant to those few cases where the ship's name includes an initial "The", eg MS The World, USS The Sullivans). Established dab guidelines for ambiguous ship names already exist.
 * For article names which are slightly more discursive (usually an event involving a specific ship) in most cases the nature of ship name alone will not confuse, especially if it can come at the beginning, eg Maersk Alabama hijacking. But that can be clunky with some verbs, "sink" for example, and the alternative word order reads better. Again, where the RS sources properly justify a ship prefix, this can provide the necessary clarity, Sinking of MV Nyerere (ie not the person)
 * However, where there is ambiguity and no built-in clarifier, the use of "the" seems to me to qualify as one of the exceptions implicitly countenanced by the Guideline: Capture of the San Joaquin (ie not the place or the saint), Capture of the William, The Anne and the Little James.
 * When the first appearance of the ship name in the article is the first sentence of the Lead, it is clear from MOS:FIRST that the article title does not have to be used verbatim (though preferred); as prose, it is relatively easy to remove any ambiguity - and even more so in the remainder of the article, by which point the reader is not likely to be confused about the italicised ship names. Davidships (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Davidships - Thank you. There is ambiguity currently where "the" is used in Capture of the San Joaquin where the Guideline is being interpreted to exclude the use of this article name. That is why we need it spelt out clearly, by showing examples where ok. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Davidships does not speak for all of us. If I see it, I remove it. Llammakey (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed he doesn't. But he seeks a consensus on the most helpful interpretation of the existing guideline and the extent of its explicit flexibility. Sorry you are choosing to stand apart from that. Davidships (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is because your "interpretation" of the guidelines is what leads to discussions such as this. There is no absolutely no reason why a definite article should be placed in front a ship name unless the ship's name is used as a descriptor, such as the Maersk Alabama hijacking. I've fixed the other articles you have mentioned. For those interested, Davidships has been moving articles to ensure that definite articles can be continued to be used in front of ship names, such as the Maersk Alabama hijacking . Llammakey (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not stick to the facts without the unfounded slur? According to the page history I have never edited Maersk Alabama hijacking nor moved any articles involving that ship. I edited the pre-existing redirect Hijacking of the Maersk Alabama so that it pointed to the right article, and created as an additional redirect Hijacking of Maersk Alabama precisely because, as noted above, it is an example where no "the" is needed.  Ah well, another failed DGF.  I thought that I had moved The Anne and Little James to The Anne and the Little James, only because it was ambiguous as to how many ships were involved, but can't have done so as it is not in the page history.  So to which page moves are you referring? Davidships (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I misread what you had done. I retract that comment. I have struck the comment. For future readers, that was entirely on me, I apologize once again. Llammakey (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. I am still left wondering about the Anne & Little James edit or whether it is my memory which has gone AWOL, which is certainly possible. Perhaps I misread the current title and tried to move it to itself, with no trail to leave. Davidships (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - This is why we need a stronger Guideline. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll suggest something shortly, but in the meantime just a heads-up that a revised move proposal has been made at Talk:Capture of the Anne. Davidships (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your proposal deserved a more useful discussion about the actual guidelines, but to no avail. Davidships (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Choice of name for an article
The policy is quite clear at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA we should name a ship article in its best known (most notable) form. The policy says use consensus, but (when in doubt) the number of returns on a google search would probably be better. However Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) is not clear enough, it should refer to that policy for guidance. Our policy here should include a link to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Authors of articles do not have last word. That is WP:OR. Follow what the sources say. Llammakey (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say here, that Authors of articles should have the last word, I didn't. However since you mention it I did suggest elsewhere that is as a last resort when all else fails it should. Broichmore (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please explain what the problem is - or examples. WP:NCSHIP already begins "... ship articles should follow WP:NAMINGCRITERIA" for both civilian and naval ships. Davidships (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An example is USS Richard Bulkeley (1917) as mentioned here. Your right in what you say; then, we should highlight it again using the link, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA at the end of page or wherever point the reader would have forgotten it. This policy (Naming conventions (ships) is too long, as are many others, on the project. Broichmore (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know if its also stated that this only becomes an issue when the ship is retired. If a given ship is sailing under a current name then it would be misleading to call the article something else. An example of such a case includes MV Astoria (historically best known as MS Stockholm (1948), the ship that collided with the SS Andrea Doria). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily irrelevant to "live" ships. In my view, we do not need to rename an article just because the ship has changed name - only if the ship becomes sufficiently notable under the new name (existence ≠ notability); if and when to rename the article becomes a matter of editorial judgment (and talk page discussion if in doubt or challenged). I see no confusion as the latest name will be a redirect and the Lead should confirm the right landing-place. Davidships (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree that we should always re-title articles to the current name. I know its common practice with editors on cruise ship articles but to my mind if the prose is all about the ships previous name the article should stay titled as that Lyndaship (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Examples (Using ship names in articles - definite article)
I've just added three examples of the use of prefixes before ship names when the name is a predicate: If anyone disputes the accuracy of my assertions, please do so here, otherwise I'll assume that I have represented this particular English idiom correctly. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nelson's flagship was HMS Victory (preferred)
 * Nelson's flagship was the Victory (preferred)
 * Nelson's flagship was Victory (not recommended)


 * I find it curious that little less than a month ago, you were arguing that "This project should not be dictating a preference between two equally valid stylistic conventions." I don't read anything at this most recent discussion to support the additions you've made. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how curious you find it. The whole point is that there are clearly examples of where the use of the definite article (such as in a predicate) is preferred in English. You're simply trying to pretend that they don't exist and consequently are using any excuse to keep those examples out of the guideline purely for reasons of personal preference. Are you really trying to tell me that you find Nelson's flagship was Victory the preferred way to write that sentence? --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how I’d write the sentence; I don’t use definite articles with ship names. Plenty of reliable sources don’t either. Given that I’ve written literally hundreds of articles on ships over the last 15 years, and I can’t bring to mind a single one you’ve done, I would appreciate you not telling me how to write articles when you aren’t doing any of the work. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What we should have here, is to substitute:


 * Do not use the definite article the before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:
 * * HMS Victory was ..., not The HMS Victory was ...


 * Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong:
 * * Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (preferred)
 * * The Victory was Nelson's flagship ... (not recommended)
 * * Nelson's flagship was HMS Victory (preferred)
 * * Nelson's flagship was the Victory (preferred)
 * * Nelson's flagship was Victory (not recommended)


 * With the following:


 * Do not use the definite article the before a gender prefix (her/his) or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:
 * * HMS Victory was ..., not The HMS Victory was ...


 * Generally, after introducing a ship for the first time, or before a gender prefix (her/his) using a definite article is acceptable
 * * Victory was Nelson's flagship ...
 * * The Victory was Nelson's flagship ...
 * * Nelson's flagship was HMS Victory
 * * Nelson's flagship was the Victory
 * * Nelson's flagship was Victory (not recommended)
 * That's if we bother to mention examples at all, which I dont think are needed here. Broichmore (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your articles. Why not cite one of those plentiful sources to illustrate how they omit the definite article when the name is used as the predicate? I've been writing in English for well over 60 years now, and I can't recall in all that time anybody suggesting that Nelson's flagship was Victory is better English than Nelson's flagship was the Victory. If you can't write using a proper English idiom, rather than the stilted nonsense you're advocating, you're going to have to get used to other editors correcting you. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships is a standard reference I have at hand at the moment - here’s just one example picked at random: ...mounted side by side facing forward (plus one firing astern on Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf...). Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd be able to make a point if you actually understood what a predicate is. That source you picked gives me little confidence that you are able to make a cogent argument against my examples. It's a completely different construction. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Gee, I'd think somebody with your decades of experience can handle the simple task of trimming a sentence to get at the essential bits - in this instance, [the guns]... (you know, the subject) were... (that one's the verb - you know, the part that starts the predicate) on Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf (might that be the rest of the predicate?) But I guess if that's beyond your abilities, how about this somewhat simpler example from an article in the most recent edition of Warship International: "...Saso Sachu was impressed very much by CHILEAN CRUISER Esmeralda's arrangement..." But let me guess, that's also somehow the subject of the sentence. If you're going to be willfully obtuse, I don't see much of a point of further debate. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) We don't need a rule here - all it will do is bring out editors who just want to enforce unnecessary rules for rules sakes, and just give rise to edit warring which will do nothing to improve article quality.15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if this is going to be used as an excuse to mass edit articles for so called "corrections", then all you will be doing is driving editors away. I hope that is not your intention.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That why if we have to say it, we should include:
 * Generally, after introducing a ship for the first time, or before a gender prefix (her/his) using a definite article is acceptable Broichmore (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have twice above reversed the part that I thought was not in dispute, viz not using a definite article before a gendered prefix - "the HMS Victory" = "the His Majesty's Ship Victory". Or is that also up for grabs? Davidships (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I did, and certainly it was not my intention. The way the policy is written (possibly by giving prescriptive examples) has led to a misunderstanding. The policy is correct if it says :
 * I don't believe examples are required.

As an aside I can't argue with not using at the beginning of the lead section as that is a style issue, though it should not have been banned in the first place. All (the only thing) that should be banned is using it front of His or Her. [User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. Frankly I only care that editors not use "the" prefix "name" format as I switch between plain "Victory did something" and "the Victory was verb" as I see fit and trying to regulate the choosing between them is a mug's game. I'd much rather that y'all spend your time and energy improving articles than arguing about a stylistic choice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm late. The word "the" should not precede the name of a ship, and should be avoided in all cases possible. Just my 0.02¢ towards any consensus. - wolf  02:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)