Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Assessments: Class assessment needed • Log Categorize and tag: New article feed Cleanup listing: Articles tagged for cleanup alphabetically or by category at Labs Expand stubs: Stub-class ship articles Images: Requested ship photos • Infoboxes without an image Infoboxes: Infobox needed • Infobox conversion needed Recent changes: US changes • UK changes • cruiseship changes
Information and sources
Article alerts: Updated daily Guidelines Manual of Style Infobox ship: Usage guide Naming Conventions (articles) Categorization Project Scope Past AfDs Popular Pages: Most popular ship articles Tools and Templates Ensigns {{Navy}} {{USN flag}} Outreach Resources Participants Barnstars Project subpages

Wikipedian in Residence

Hi all,

I'm sitting just now talking to Robertforsythe, who is the new Wikimedian in Residence at the Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums. He will hopefully be along to introduce himself shortly :-)

We're thinking about approaches for suitable projects for him to work on. Some ideas so far:

1. helping staff/volunteers there write on individual ships (a first example is, eg, MV Murree)
2. starting to construct Tyne-focused ship lists (compare to List of ships built by A. & J. Inglis)
3. digitisation of some material from the photo library (we have a tranche of material from flickr at Commons:Category:Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and Ed has already sent a first request...)

Any suggestions for how he can help, or specific requests, do get in touch :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

From memory, the Tyne & Wear was an important centre for warship building and repairs before and during World War I. Photos of warships under construction or repair would be invaluable if these are in the museums' collections - they're often more interesting than the PR-type photos which we currently rely on. Similarly, photos of sailors of this period would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where should requests be posted? At the userpage for the Resident (as I just did), or elsewhere? Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is as good a place as any, I guess. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall also say hello to folks. The subject is very close to my heart. If you click to Norfolk Wherry you will read about the Forsythe Wherry Yard. That was my upbringing, many years later I was curator to the Scottish Maritime Museum and now for a while there is this chance to work on the Tyne Wear Archives and Museums material as TWAMWIR, privately I am as I have been RobertForsythe. John Bowes (Steamship) has been added now. Foyboat is something to work on. So is the Pallion Shipyard where TSS Manxman was dismantled recently. Conceptually there are HUGE amounts to work on and the residency is quite limited. If you wish to edit any Tyneside and Wearside related pieces, always interested. I was scanning last week in the archives a beautful 1924 British Empire Exhibition Palmers of Jarrow brochure. As I am allowed I will will be uploading to Wiki Commons also as TWAMWIR.TWAMWIR (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a stub reference to the Pallion yard at William Doxford & Sons. Davidships (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andrew forwarded our emails to you, but I would do ten cartwheels and a handstand for the images of Minas Geraes that should be in that museum. :-) Edit: just read point three above... thanks Andrew! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the catalogue references to the images that would be of interest to you. I am not exactly sure of the status of the images reproduced in the site. If they are linked back to Flickr Commons you could use them easily. If they are not you would need to use the archive catalogue to make requests for scans. There seems to be plenty of images. [1] then search for Minas Gereas 1 DF.CLR/8 Series Photographs of the Brazilian battleship 'Minas Geraes' 1908 - 1909

2 DS.VA/3/1994.164 Item Yard no. 791E, Minas Geraes. Showing the launch of Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes, Elswick shipyard 10.9.1908 4_164.jpg 3 DS.VA/3/1994.165 Item Yard no. 791E, Minas Geraes. Showing the Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes firing broadside of ten 12 in. guns

In the archives site click on the numbers 1,2, 3 and you will see more information.

This is part of what shows up at 1:

F E W Coller, OBE, shipyard manager, Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth & Co. Ltd Collection 1911 - 1924

Click the RefNo to see other items in this collection

Level Series RefNo DF.CLR/8 Title Photographs of the Brazilian battleship 'Minas Geraes' Date 1908 - 1909 Description Includes photographs of the launch and of the vessel passing through the Swing Bridge, leaving the Tyne, firing its guns and at sea. The vessel was built by Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth & Co. Ltd, yard no. 791. Format 24 postcards, 6 photographs, black and white

and this shows more [2]

TWAMWIR (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! However, there is not indication of the copyright status of these images. Can you confirm that they are in the public domain, or that the T&W Archives has the authority to do so? Also, while I don't want to complain when there is an image available (better that than nothing!), the images are little more than thumbnail size. Is there any chance of getting the Archives to release higher-quality images? If it helps, they will be used in South American dreadnought race, Template:Sclass-, and/or Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also just noting that only two images have been uploaded by them, but one of them ([3]), which is available in many sources, is the lead image at South American dreadnought race. Not sure if it would be helpful to show them that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is going to get actively worked on. TWAMWIR (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

THREE photographs from the collection referred to above DF. CLR/8 are now on Wiki Commons at [[4]]. The archivists have cleared these for uploading under the 70+ plus years from date of publication rule. TWAMWIR (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we are likely to lose the lead image for the Krasin (1917 icebreaker) article (see below). It would be good to have a free image of high quality from before the ship was modernized. According to our article, "The icebreaker was built by Armstrong Whitworth in Newcastle upon Tyne .... The vessel was launched as the Svyatogor on 3 August 1916 and completed in February 1917." There are drawings on the web without adequate sourcing [5]; they also do not show the hull shape; that is of particular interest since the design was influential. Thanks, Dankarl (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I note this enquiry about Krasin. I have done a quick search of the Tyne Wear Archives catalogue on both names and nothing shows which translates into nothing catalogued as yet. TWAMWIR (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Style question: articles and ship names

Hey everyone, not a big history or naval guy but when working on Star Trek articles, the matter of using articles before ship names comes up and I figured I'd check with you guys on a point of style; namely whether "the" is necessary before the name. The rule of thumb I learned during my time interning at National Museum of the United States Navy (though that was a long time ago, which is partly why I'm checking) is that you only used (or needed to use) articles when referring to a ship class, etc., so "the Constitution-class USS Enterprise." Otherwise, the ship's name was treated like, well, any proper noun and didn't need it--you wouldn't say "the David", so "Enterprise attacks Reliant." Am I correct in my supposition? I looked a a random sampling of ship articles in this project's naming guidelines and saw it used somewhat inconsistently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. Ship names are treated as any other proper name—well, most proper names ;) The reason there's confusion is in part because "the" makes sense with American ships (since it would be "the United States' Ship XXXX"), but it doesn't with others (such as "the His/Her Majesty's Ship XXXX). Parsecboy (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented on a similar query at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Wording propriety. It's also been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 32#"The" before a ship's name. I'll copy what I wrote there as there are many reference works that do place 'the' before ships' names, preceded by a prefix or not:

The instances where 'the' is generally not used is only when the full usage would create a grammatical inconsistency. For example, 'the HMS Victory' would read as 'the Her Majesty's Ship Victory'. But 'the United States Ship' and hence 'the USS' and other examples are fine. As, in this instance, is 'Sinking of the RMS Titanic'. To further clarify, the use of the definite article usually depends on simple grammatical rules. When the ship is the subject, it might be left out, when it is the object it is usually included. In one of the examples I used in the above discussion; Brian Lavery's Churchill Goes to War, he has "Renown had settled into a routine..." and "The Renown's idyll ended..." In the first instance the subject is the battlecruiser Renown and the definite article is not used. In the second, the subject is the idyll that the ship is experiencing, and the definite article is used. Similarly in Jan Morris's Fisher's Face, which has on the same page "...in the Warrior he introduced the order 'still'" and "Donegal was his first ship..." The first it is Fisher who is the subject, and the ship Warrior as the object is given the definite article, in the second the ship Donegal is the subject and doesn't use the definite article. In the case of this article title, the grammatical subject is the 'sinking'. The RMS Titanic is the object, and is correctly referred to with 'the'.

So while I don't think there is anything hard and fast, you wouldn't be wrong to use 'the' before a ship's name. "Enterprise attacked the Reliant" for example. Or "During the battle, Kirk ordered the Enterprise to attack the Reliant". Benea (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot. Never really thought about the RMS/USS difference factoring into it either, but I guess they stop meaning anything other than abbreviations to me :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't use "the" with ship names, as it just seems like an extra word that doesn't have to be there, but I do occasionally use it in front of prefixes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I try to avoid using the definite article when writing about ships, but sometimes it feels suitable when I have some words between the article and the name of the ship. However, I never use it with prefixes — talking about "...the MS Oasis of the Seas..." just feels wrong when the prefix is not part of the ship's official name even if it's grammatically correct ("...the motor ship Oasis of the Seas...". But then again, I try to avoid prefixes in general in case of civilian ships. Tupsumato (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

template:sclass and disambiguated ship classes

There doesn't seem to be a way to link to disambiguated ship classes using sclass, or am I missing something? "XYZ-class shiptype (1901)" or "Ufonian XYZ-class shiptype" or "Ufonian XYZ-class shiptype (1832)" won't link. This needs something like {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| |1832}} or {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| |1832|Ufonian}} or {{sclass|XYZ|shiptype|?| | |Ufonian}} or something -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a real-life example?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How about any of these three? Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the {{sclass}} family of templates only disambiguate ship type:

{{sclass | class name | ship type | format | ship-type disambiguation }}

I think that to disambiguate classes like the Template:Sclass-s, something like this perhaps:

{{sclass | class name | ship type | format | ship-type disambiguation | class-name disambiguation}} which would be written:

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|0||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|1||1905}} → Königsberg-class

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|2||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|3||1905}} → Königsberg-class cruiser (1905)

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|4||1905}} → Königsberg class (1905)

{{sclass-|Königsberg|cruiser|5||1905}} → Königsberg (1905)

These mock-ups attempt to interpret how such {{sclass}} templates might function for all of the currently valid format parameters. Would these be workable? Is there sufficient need or desire for someone, me perhaps (though if it is me, it won't be soon because my life is about to get busier), to take the time to make the {{sclass}} family do this type of disambiguation?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There's vary rarely any need to have the disambiguator visible; the template just needs to link to the proper class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then these {{sclass-/sandbox}} templates appear to do the trick ({{sclass/sandbox}}, {{sclass2/sandbox}}, {{sclass2-/sandbox}} are also modified):

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

Template:Sclass-/sandbox

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good by me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Saberwyn just noticed that something was amiss with {{sclass}} and then it wasn't. That was me. I have made the live versions of {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} capable of class-name disambiguation as described above. That revealed a flaw in the code that the test cases didn't catch. It had to do with how the parser function #if: handles parameters that may or may not be passed to the template (mw:Help:Parser functions in templates explains that).

So, I think that's fixed and everything should be more-or-less normal. {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} should be working as they were and do not support class-name disambiguation – that will require an admin. {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}} do support class-name disambiguation.

Are there any ship classes that use both ship-type disambiguation and class-name disambiguation? Does anyone know of a group of classes, like the Königsberg classes, where the class name isn't italicized? The documentation for {{sclass2-}} could use such a class to use as an example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's D class cruiser (Germany), and probably some of the British destroyer and submarine classes are the same, since a lot of them got single letter names. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Didn't use that one but it led me to Template:Sclass2-. Still looking for a ship class that uses both ship-type disambiguation and class-name disambiguation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

About the only ship types that need disambiguation are minesweeper and monitor and there are a lot more minesweeper classes than monitors. Look through the British minesweepers of WWI and WWII and you might find one that fits your criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another set of oddballs: British Porpoise-class submarine and United States Porpoise-class submarine. Parsecboy (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ding! Ding! Ding! {{sclass2-|Hunt|minesweeper|3|ship|1916}} → Template:Sclass2-

I just wanted to prove that, were it necessary, {{sclass/core}} would correctly handle both types of disambiguation simultaneously.

It would be so easy to accommodate the Porpoise classes if they used parenthetical disambiguation ... and then there are the A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and I don't know how many other -class submarines most of which are styled <nation> <class name>-class <ship type>. I suppose we could make redirects. For example create a redirect at Porpoise-class submarine (British) which would then redirect to British Porpoise-class submarine so you could use {{sclass2-|Porpoise|submarine|||British}}.

Or just move the articles to a proper parenthetically disambiguated name and be done with it. I do however, have some little trace of a memory that says that there are reasons why this can't be or shouldn't be done. Surely someone out there know the answer to that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the converation I was remembering was this one in archive 35. There, Editor The Bushranger suggests moving USCG Polar-class icebreaker to Polar-class icebreaker (USCG). At the time I noted that the {{sclass}} family of templates wouldn't be able to accommodate that kind of disambiguation but that otherwise I liked the idea. No other objections were raised. I still like the idea and now, the {{sclass}} templates can accommodate the name change. Just as we overcame some amount of stiction and have finally got most class article names hyphenated, so too we can transition to a uniform disambiguation format.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation by nationality bit is mentioned in the naming conventions here - I can only guess that the reason we settled on that style was that it would fit better with the "nationality+ship type+name" format for individual ships. If we were to change the disambiguation style for the Porpoises, it would be better to use the noun form of the country (so Great Britain rather than British, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also K-class submarine illustrating both parenthetical and adjectival disambiguation. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In that list, which I've since edited for hyphenation and consistency, was K class submarine (Soviet), a redirect to Soviet K-class submarine. That link illustrates my earlier suggestion for how we might use this new class-name disambiguation feature. That list also suggests a case where {{sclass}} should display the parenthetical disambiguator, though it might not be worth the effort. It's probably easier to type [[K-class submarine (Soviet)]] when complete article title links are needed than to type {{sclass-|K|submarine|7||Soviet}} (assumes that format code 7 produces a link like this K-class submarine (Soviet) but format code 1 could also be used).

I seem to have neglected to mention it here. The parenthetical class-name disambiguation feature is live and available in {{sclass-}} and {{sclass2-}}. Because {{sclass}} and {{sclass2}} are fully protected, I can't synchronize them with their sandboxes. An edit request for those two is pending at Template talk:sclass#Edit request #3.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it done that way because the ship articles use adjetival nation forms? ("French ship XYZ", instead of "XYZ (France)" ) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've only glanced through the discussions in the first archive of WT:NC-SHIPS. I didn't see any glaringly obvious reasons for adjectival disambiguation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tiger V.jpg

File:Tiger V.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yasen Class.jpg

image:Yasen Class.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Showboat Branson Belle

I just created a commons category for Showboat Branson Belle. I added it in external links. I uploaded a bunch of nice images of her. I can crop the lake one down to just the ship for better use in the article. The stage curtain may be copyvio but I will check at commons. If not it may be the best for the infobox?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

SD18

I have just translated SD18 (ship type) from the German. Please check I have the terminology correct, add an infobox, and rate on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some copyediting. Tupsumato (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprised to find how wrong de:SD18 is on basic data, eg engines, derricks. Have corrected en only. Davidships (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll alert our German colleagues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discovery by Kenneth C Madsen.jpg

image:Discovery by Kenneth C Madsen.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Titles for ships with multiple names

Sorry if this has been addressed previously but as I am going through and editing the list of ocean liners I am noticing tons of article names that suggest that there is no rule on how to name an article for a ship that sailed under more than one name. The lack of consistency is striking and in some cases a bit difficult to justify. Such as when you have a ship that spent 20+ years as an ocean liner and a year or two as a naval transport or hospital ship, but the article is named after her military name.

If in fact there is no firm rule may I propose that the Wiki guidelines for article names be amended to specify that articles about ships with more than one name shall carry the name under which the ship was originally launched unless the original name was held only very briefly and or the ship is universally known by a later name (i.e. the RMS Majestic (1914) ex SS Bismark). Later names can be referred to the main article. - Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines already state that 'An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name'. This fits with WP:COMMONNAME. It may simply be that though the ship spent a longer amount of time as a passenger liner, that a briefer period under a military name/designation, is of greater historical note. I'd personally leave things as they are, and discuss issues with individual articles as and when they arise, rather than trying to mandate a particular approach. It can be very hard in some instances to determine just what the 'universally known' name is, or how short a time can be considered as 'very brief', etc. Benea (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

An example of this in action is the battlecruiser SMS Goeben, which spent far more time known as TCG Yavuz Sultan Selim, but the ship's few years of service during WWI as Goeben is far more noteworthy than the six decades of inactivity as Yavuz, and so the article as at the former rather than the latter. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There often is a problem with the naval or military name being given undue preeminence. The root of the problem with commercial ships of considerable note being subsumed by relatively obscure or brief naval service, whether commissioned or not, probably lies with the fact the Navy does public domain historical sketches in now readily available DANFS, A great many "articles" here are nothing more than reformatted DANFS text. Digging and finding substantial public domain information about such a ship is far more work. Commerce, aside from advertising and maintenance, did not tend to keep large files on ship "histories" in archives now readily available or even existing. We also have a few cases in the opposite direction, for example Lyndonia (1920). There obscure (though interestingly notable "to be added") Army and Navy history in the opening days of WW II was completely missing. Her predecessor suffers the opposite. USS Lyndonia (SP-734) had pretty obscure naval service but digging up her notable yacht days (there is a fair amount) involves digging in private archives and widely scattered news clippings, then weaving those into readable, cited text. My best take of the article name is similar to that of Benea. Judge which of the names was indeed most notable and use that name except in the relatively few cases where two linked articles might best serve cases in which two "lives" were of particular note. For example, books could (and have been) be written about the great liners such as the Queens in both commercial and WW II service. There has also been a persistent problem with tagging ships "USS" that have never served a day as a commissioned U.S. Naval Ship—the fundamental requirement for proper usage—and USAT for U.S. Army Transport, though that is much more understandable. There was no bright line of a commissioning involved as with the USN and even experts differ in some cases. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big problem, as long as redirects are created for all other names (with and without shipprefixes) so people can find the article in question. This may mean the need to create dab and shipindex pages to cater for different ship with the same name. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates (yet again)

Just to inform you, I have converted all mainspace transclusions of the following shipping-related database or registry citation templates to {{csr}} and nomitated the redundant templates for deletion:

• {{ABS name}}
• {{BV name}}
• {{cite equasis}}
• {{cite Miramar}}
• {{DNV name}}
• {{GL name}}
• {{LR name}}
• {{Psix name}}
• {{RINA name}}
• {{RS name}}
• {{shippingdatabase}}

Tupsumato (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Lake Iamonia Steamboat.jpg

File:Lake Iamonia Steamboat.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Florence 2008.jpg

File:Florence 2008.jpg has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is up for deletion because it has no metadata -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ship names containing the definite article

A little while ago the La Melpoméne-class torpedo boat article was moved, to "Melpoméne-class..." (ie. without the definite article), and names of a dozen or so ships listed on that page [6] and a couple of others ([7], [8]) were edited to remove the definite article from them. The same process also occurred a while ago with several other French ship class pages ([9], [10], [11]).
I’ve raised this with the editor concerned (there’s a lengthy discussion, here, about it) but I am bringing the matter up here now for comments. The reason given for these actions is that having the article in these names is a mis-reading of the French by English-speaking authors, and the lack of the article in names is supported by French sources (or one, at least [12]). The opposite view is that all of the sources for these articles (both here and on the French WP) use definite articles in the names for these particular ships.
So, what does anyone else think? Does anybody know the truth of it? And what should we be doing in these cases? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: I've informed the other editor, Rama, of this (here) and inited him/her to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, neither Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 nor the 1906-1921 edition appear to use the definite article in ship names - on the other hand, the 1922-1946 edition does use it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty much the issue; sources like Conway's 1922-46, Jane’s (AFAICT) Whitley (for destroyers) Bagnasco (for submarines) list these ships with the definite article. It is only a selection of ships (8/12 of La Melpoméne's, 6/12 Le Hardi’s, 6/14 L’Adroit’s, 6/6 Le Fantasque, but none of the Mogador’s, Vauquelin’s or any other destroyers; 6/31 of the Redoutable’s, 2/6 Argonaute's, 2/6 Diane’s, 7/8 Aurore’s, but none of the other submarines, etc) But all the sources list the same vessels with the definite article. The inconsistency (if that's what it is) is consistent. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my point was that you frequently see French ironclad Gloire as La Gloire, but the editors of the 1860-1905 edition chose to omit the definite article. I think the question is broader than these classes of destroyers specifically and should consider the usage across French warships generally. To follow one set of rules for certain ships and another for others is inconsistent, and while we do have a responsibility to follow conventions, that doesn't mean we should knowingly repeat false information (i.e., that the ship had La Malin painted on the side if it actually just had Malin).

By way of extension, most sources on the German cruiser Deutschland were written in the 1980s or earlier, so they didn't have access to Soviet records on the fate of the ship, which necessarily makes them inaccurate. We don't treat those accounts as factual, however, despite the fact that they represent a "consensus" of sorts. Those older sources are acknowledged in the article, but are clearly marked as inaccurate. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Something else to chew on: Ted Ropp's excellent The Development of a Modern Navy does not use "La" for ship names like Gloire. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear to me that, for whatever reason, the French navy decided to include a definitive article in the names of a few ships (as well as those where it formed part of the name of a person or place being commemorated, in which cases these doubts do not arise). This class of torpedo boat was one. In the discussion linked above, user:Rama notes that Roche, Jean-Michel (2005) Dictionnaire des bâtiments de la flotte de guerre française de Colbert à nos jours adds "(La)" etc after some names. I do not have Roche, but Bruno Nicolas Dictionnaire de la Flotte de Guerre Française de 1671 à nos Jours (2009) does the same - MELPOMENE (LA), IPHIGENIE (L'), for example - but only in relation to this class, not for previous vessels of those names; and he refers to them as "Torpilleur type La Melpomène" [not Melpoméne, please]. This is not because the article is optional, but for ease of reference in a dictionary. The Mercantile Navy List did the same with British merchant ships - THE QUEEN is found under QUEEN (THE). In case of doubt, this is supported by the photos at, for example, L'Incomprise, L'Iphigénie , or (cannot be linked direct from WP) images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/172/611/831_001.jpg La Bayonnaise.

I do not think it right for WP to change the names actually given to these ships (and by extension their Class), provided they can be cited (which they can, from Roche, Nicolas etc). This is nothing to do with conventions, just the facts - the French navy did not usually include an article in the name of a ship but in these, and a few other, cases they did. Davidships (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships

There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)