Talk:Steam Gun Boat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

I have substantially expanded this article, but aim to add more later on the evolution of the design, which was largely (but not solely) carried out by Denny, Dunbarton. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh?[edit]

The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of steam gun boats? What? Flapdragon (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it was! It's not quite as idiotic as it seems, since it is an article about the class of naval boats called "Steam Gun Boats", and only peripherally a description of what a steam gun boat is. That's why "Steam Gun Boat" is capitalised. There were steam gun boats that were not Steam Gun Boats (SGBs), that is, didn't belong to the class. All articles about naval classes start that way. An example of a standard naval class article is Flower class corvette. You can see from that, that this article could be be titled "Steam Gun Boat class gun boat", but that would be even more idiotic. Anyway, I've reworded the lead sentence so it reads in a slightly less silly way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point but surely common sense says you can't define a thing by simply repeating its name without capital letters. It might be in some sense true to say that "The British National Space Centre (BNSC) is the British national space centre", but it doesn't tell me anything I didn't know from the title, if I wanted to find out what a national space centre actually was. (OK, maybe not a great example but you get the general idea.) Instead we have "The British National Space Centre (BNSC) is a British government body that coordinates civil space activities for the UK" which makes sense.

Also, surely an article should explain the most generic meaning of a term before going on to explain that the term also has a more specific reference. The Flower class corvette article doesn't seem at all odd, it's clearly an article about a class of corvette, on the pattern of "the lesser-spotted woodpecker is a type of woodpecker". I'd have expected Steam Gun Boat (SGB) to be part of (or if worthy of a separate article, then at least linked to from) an article called Steam gun boat, along with the other types of steam gun boats that weren't Steam Gun Boats. As a layman I'd never heard the term steam gun boat and certainly didn't expect to find myself reading about a certain specific type of the thing which confusingly enough happened to be called by the same name as the generic thing, which doesn't have an entry of its own.

If you see what I mean...

Flapdragon (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What about an article steam gun boat, beginning something like "A steam gun boat is a type of steam-powered motor gun boat used by the Royal Navy in the first half of the twentieth century" (or whatever), continuing "The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of nine steam gun boats" and linking to the existing article?

Or, if you feel that's too much like having an article called "diesel car" meaning simply any old car with a diesel engine, in other words if you think "steam gun boat" is only a set phrase when it refers to the SGB class, then how about something slightly less odd and more explanatory-sounding such as "The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of nine gun boats, powered by steam, built from 1940 to 1942" etc? (Not sure about the wording of "during 1940–1942", incidentally.) Flapdragon (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed the lead as you suggested. Btw, the "British National Space Centre" is not a class of British national space centres, so it is not an appropriate comparison, since it belongs to a different logical category. You could, of course, address your concerns about this awkward name to where it belongs, with the British Admiralty, who, circa 1940, were responsible for creating the situation. Anyway, things get worse. The British had another class called the Motor Gun Boat, so you have another problem article. There is already a, rather scrappy, article called gunboat, which discusses steam gun boats, but you could certainly improve. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Aargh! I think this landlubber may be getting into distinctly deep waters here. Thanks for your patience. Flapdragon (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've further edited the lead along the lines of the lead to Motor Gun Boat. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. All the best, Flapdragon (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Requested move 20 October 2013[edit]

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: Discussion moved to Talk:Motor Gun Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013. All six discussions are in regards to WP:CAPSACRS; best to centralize the discussions so that six separate discussions are not happening. Steel1943 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Steam Gun BoatSteam gun boat – We don't capitalise acronyms when written in full (see WP:CAPSACRS) and we don't capitalise the article names of types of ship (eg destroyer escort, aircraft carrier, river gunboat, torpedo boat, torpedo boat destroyer, and so on). The general guidance at Wikipedia is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". I have also proposed this change at Motor Torpedo Boat, Motor Launch, Motor Gun Boat and Coastal Motor Boat. Shem (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The discussion is on-going at Talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 21:46, 23 October 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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Motor Gun Boat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)