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

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 and other such boats

Is "Motor Torpedo Boat" really part of the name? Or why is it capped? Sources mostly have it lowercase. Why not just title it PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? For less famous ones, something like PT-109 wouldn't be ambiguous. Is there a relevant convention or guideline? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be Patrol Torpedo Boat PT-109, as that was the correct designation, and the reason for the PT in PT-109. There is an example, but using Motor Torpedo Boat, at the bottom of WP:SHIPNAME#Naming articles about military ships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting; it also says "but be sure the ship type name is correct". The example "German submarine" is fine, but why the caps for "Motor Torpedo Boat", and why not "Patrol torpedo boat"? Doesn't say. Ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's because US PT boats in WWII were in Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons (abbreviated USN-style as MTBRON 1 etc., nicknamed "Ron 1" for short), and as a military unit name it was naturally capitalized. They are listed under the heading "Motor Torpedo Boats" (all caps in the original) in "US Warships of WWII" by Silverstone, first published in the 1960s. I'll also comment that the name in general use for a ship type is not always derivable from that type's hull classification symbol, such as CA for heavy cruiser or AV for seaplane tender. Not saying that we are obligated to follow this style, just mentioning the origin and perpetuation of this designation. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. So what do you think would be an improvement? Motor torpedo boat PT-109? PT-109 (motor torpedo boat)? Patrol torpedo boat PT-109? Or something else? The current title suggests a proper name where there is not one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's US, so should be PT, not MTB.

If it had been a RN boat, MTB would be correct and should absolutely be capitalised.

Why is it that the only edits I ever see from you are you popping up at a random range of articles and announcing, "I know nothing about this topic. Watch me enforce a renaming of all articles across it!" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You're free to look at my contributions if you want to analyze where we intersect and where we don't. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon Patrol Torpedo Boat is the proper name of the type. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. But why is it so rare to find it capped in sources? Is patrol torpedo boat also a common generic term? Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought in most sources it would be introduced as Patrol Torpedo Boat, then PT boat thereafter. I have no idea what you mean about patrol torpedo boat being a common generic term, it is a very specific proper name for the type of high-speed torpedo-armed boat of about 80 ft used by the USN in WWII. Other navies had their own proper names for similar types of small combatant vessels, such as the British Motor Gun Boat or MGB and Motor Torpedo Boat or MTB. It depends on what sources you are referring to. I would be looking to definitive and high quality texts like Norman Friedman's Small US Combatants for guidance on this, not books that just mention PT boats in passing. I don't have a copy of Friedman to hand, but @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: might. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that most books don't cap it. So if it's a proper name sometimes, it's a generic other times? Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to get at with "generic". It is the proper name of the type, and only refers to one type of small combatant boat built for and operated by the USN, as I've explained. Naturally, when introduced in any given book, they would capitalise it and introduce the PT initialisation, after that they will probably refer to it as a PT boat as shorthand. But as I said, we should be relying on definitive texts on the subject, not random Google Books results. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

By "generic" I just meant not proper, that is, not capitalized. I'd be interested in seeing books that cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's about six years since we last had one of these capitalisation discussions, see Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. I certainly agree with Andy that the Royal Navy prefers to cap all their boat types. But some of these are not really just about Royal Navy boats, right? Like Motor Launch is a confusing inconsistent mess. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see what damage people cause when they start blindly decapitalising stuff, because wikidogma says "words must never be capitalised", and with no understanding of the subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Friedman does not capitalize motor torpedo boat or patrol torpedo boat, apparently viewing them as generic terms like cruiser or destroyer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sturm. I managed to get a snippet on the Osprey book on PT boats, and it doesn't either, so I would support a move to Patrol torpedo boat PT-109, and consequential moves of any other PT boats with articles. The British boats seem to be a different case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I must modify the above in that I had a better look at the Osprey US PT boat book by Rottman, and he says (on page 6) that USS was part of their official name, along with their Bureau of Ships hull number. In which case, IAW WP:NCS, individual PT boats should really be at <prefix><hull number> USS PT-109 etc rather than the other alternatives, and we should modify the MOS to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the PT boats weren't actually commissioned, so they wouldn't get the USS prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What terminology does DANFS use, completed or commissioned? And does that differ from that used by larger US ships?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have at least one source that says USS was officially used for PT boats, and Rottman also says they were commissioned (p. 18). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DANFS only has an entry for one PT boat I can find, and that is PT-109. It calls it "Motor Torpedo Boat 109", doesn't use USS and doesn't refer to a commissioning date. However, other ship entries don't use USS either, for example USS Pruitt (DD-347) is just referred to as Pruit (DD-347) in its entry, not as USS Pruitt (DD-347). Frankly, I don't think that DANFS really progresses this discussion much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that DANFS doesn't include a commissioning date is rather telling, especially for a boat in the 1940s. Also consider, for example, this list of vessels damaged or sunk during WWII from the NHHC; they clearly differentiate between commissioned warships that receive the prefix and those that don't (i.e., all of the PT boats, among others).

As for Rottman, I don't know anything about him, but the Ospreys are hit-or-miss; I wouldn't put a lot of faith on him alone. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly that list draws into question the USS prefix. Bulkley [1] reckons each squadron was commissioned, rather than each PT boat individually. So I guess we are back at either Motor torpedo boat PT-109 or Patrol torpedo boat PT-109. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As a slight aside - talking about ships whose commissioned status in the USN (and hence use of the USS prefix is uncertain, how about USS Richard Bulkeley (1917), a Naval trawler built for the Royal Navy in 1917 and loaned to the USS in 1919 to help in clearing the Northern Barrage - she had a US Navy crew when she was mine and sunk in July 1919, but I havn't seen any thing definitive about whether she was counted as a commissioned US vessel (or even remained a commissioned RN ship) at the time of her loss.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

She was acquired 31 May 1919 on loan for U.S. Navy service as a minesweeper and commissioned the same day

— "Richard Bulkeley", Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command

Thanks - I'd somehow missed the "...and commissioned the same day" bit in DANFS. I'm still not sure whether the article would be better at HMT Richard Bulkeley, as she served most of her life under RN control, during a war, even though we don't have very much info on her service, or as USS Richard Bulkeley, where service was very short (less than 2 months) but there are accounts of her sinking.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother changing it now, just ensure that there are redirects from HMT Richard Bulkeley, HMS Richard Bulkeley and a link from Richard Bulkeley. If it were to be changed then I would suggest moving it to Richard Bulkeley (1917) and making HMT Richard Bulkeley, HMS Richard Bulkeley and USS Richard Bulkeley redirects. Just my 2d worth. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a name change in this specific instance, but... 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) returns on a google search would probably be better. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) should refer to that policy for guidance. Broichmore (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's because they're also generic terms. That doesn't mean that some uses (most obviously the RN, maybe the USN here too) are more specific than this, and refer to more specific classes where they are treated as proper names. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the case-fixing move, without prejudice for what a better name might be. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is with prejudice, I don't see you have the consensus for the change. As I pointed out elsewhere it is standard Engineering practise to capitalise titles on drawings. That is no different for song titles, which you seem to think are precious. I don't understand why you're making needless changes, creating needless re-directs and wiping out stat scores, over such a trivial issue. I'm not against style guideline as such, but...

When in doubt the Article writers judgement call should be respected. Substance over style. I don't get it how can there be an objection to caps in this case when there is a project page entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters? This is a nonsense, how can Motor torpedo boat PT-109 be correct when it is a particular of Motor Torpedo Boat.

This stems from this piece of contradictory nonsense in MOS:THECAPS, which needs changing. In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions. First and last words within a title, including a subtitle, are capitalized regardless of grammatical use. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language.This is not applied to Wikipedia's own articles, which are given in sentence case:[a] capitalize the first letter, and proper names (e.g., List of selection theorems, Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration).

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 is a title, the fact that it is also an article title, is neither here or there.

The project is in English. We need to conform to the English language not the other way round. If this Under My Thumb can be an exception then so should drawing / engineering titles. Which are of course works. Broichmore (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I take your not answering my points as agreement that I'm right. I have moved the article back to its's original name because you changed it without consensus, in addition the original name was correct. If the policy is wrong in any way or open to the wrong interpretation then it should be change. You are an expert on said policy, please change it. Broichmore (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to stay out of this nonsense. You guys sort it out. Dicklyon (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I had changed the title back to upper case and Dicklyon has called that into question, and from reading this discussion it looks like the correct name for this page has yet to be found. For such a historical topic the encyclopedia should get it right. There seem to be several names deemed correct or incorrect, and aside from the common name for this topic (which would be just PT-109 with no descriptor) all additional names can be boldfaced as alternate names. But the title should be clarified and labeled correctly. Have the participants in this discussion settled on the most likely name? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Randy, the one you changed was Motor Torpedo Boat PT-59; there are still some others that I lowercased that have not been reverted. I agree it's a good idea to focus on PT-109 first, but it needs to be decided whether to treat it like the rest, versus special. I have no opinion on that either way. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier the policy itself says In English-language titles, every word is capitalised, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, why cant the policy be changed to follow the acknowledged rules of the English language? Broichmore (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good news: Policy can be changed. Just go propose it at WP:VPP. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will, once I get the time to learn the whole procedure. Broichmore (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

PT-109 is certainly, I'd guess by far, the common name for this page. Probably should be moved to that while the other PT-109 entries stay at a disamb page. This discussion should continue on what to call the boats and in what casing, but calling the page PT-109 works for all the titling criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I also moved some pages to include a hyphen between the PT and number, as that's what sources usually do. For the type and case, I suggest Torpedo boat PT-59 etc. Maybe I'll get back into it if nobody from the project wants to take the lead or propose something different. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that your only giving lip service to democracy here, yet still pushing hard for an immediate name change at Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109. This is still actively under discussion. Please don't bulldoze this change into place until this discussion has matured. You conspicuously have yet to tell us why the rules of the English language can be or should be ignored in this matter, by this contradictory and superficial policy. Broichmore (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't work by democracy. We make proposals and discuss them. The RM discussion that you link is the way a multi-article move discussion is formalized, when the moves might be controversial. It is conventional for editors who care to say Support or Oppose, with an explanation, or to present alternatives there. Please join. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

May I point out that if you refer to our List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy you can see the thinking behind how the USN defined designators for vessels of this type. It is consistent. First (the useage), second (the qualifier), third (a further method of subdivision). Example PHM, Patrol Missile Hydrofoil. You can see the applied logic through all the designators listed, and they are in caps. Yes, it's clunky, but it is by design. Presumably because its clunky its not often echoed in free speech or prose. As an aside it's well documented elsewhere that the US in common with the French revolutionaries favored any method different from the old order, justification enough not to follow the logic of similar in the Royal Navy. Broichmore (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is fairly common practice to capitalise the words when explaining as initialism or acronym (although not all the entries in List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy are strictly so, that is probably better for visual consistency), but that doesn't establish what is appropriate in running text or descriptors. Davidships (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

At the WP:VPP discussion (notified below) I made the comment there, quoted as follows. Disclosure: I arrived here after a post to my TP but I am reasonably an "interested party" following my post at VPP. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of orthography) and what is a proper noun (a matter of onomastics and grammar). A proper noun is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of Fowler (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it were the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, Boat, Patrol, Torpedo, and not Patrol Torpedo Boat, since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the formal designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any evidence that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What contemporaneous sources use

• Katz Jr., Michael D., Our Fighting Ships (1943), which was made available to US servicemen during the war, contains brief descriptions and photographs of U.S. warships and auxiliaries. It has a section entitled "Motor Torpedo Boats"[2] and identifies them as "PT x" (with x standing for the number; it is not clear to me if there is a space between the "PT" and the number), and without the U.S.S. prefix, in contrast to the larger commissioned warships.
• Samuel Eliot Morison, in his 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, uses the style "PT-x", x being the boat number.

Kablammo (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree they seem to be called motor torpedo boats much more often than patrol torpedo boats, then and now. But most people here seemed to want to get away from that that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Peter Scott's book, written immediately after the end of WW2: The Battle of the Narrow Seas: The History of Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea 1939-1945, he uses "P.T. boats" in numerous cases - though he does not seem to refer to any individual numbered boat. I mention this as Scott seems quite precise in his terminology elsewhere in the book and he was sent to Cherbourg as Liaison Officer with American coastal forces in August 1944. He does not (as far as I can tell) refer to them as "Motor Torpedo Boats" at any point - reserving that for British craft of that designation.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RM discussion open

Broichmore's comments above remind me that I should have explicitly announced here my new proposal at multi-RM discussion Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109#Requested move 12 August 2019. Sorry for the few hours of delay on that. Please bring ideas if you don't like the one I proposed. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This was decided in favor of Patrol torpedo boat PT-59 and such. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PT-305 in the news

We probably need an article on the restored PT-305. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That could be your third ships article? Broichmore (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Diving bell caps similar case

Caisson Diving Bell Barge

This discussion, in part, derives from a dialogue at User talk:Dicklyon#Air lock diving-bell plant about Dicklyon renaming Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant which I still think was un-called for as it was properly titled with caps; on the basis it's an Admiralty vessel with a proper name. Apparently the Engineering convention of using caps for titles is not covered by Wiki guidelines. I disagree with him on this. The barge was given a proper name as it's a unique creation in the same way as is, a song title, book or musical composition. In any event, the author of article should have the last say on the matter. By the way, changing a title to sentence case wipes out the stat count of user Views. Also while I'm at it, Dicklyon, has still not explained to me why WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks is not written as WP:Manual of style/trademarks? -Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I answered on 15 June where you asked about why title guidelines don't apply to pages in WP. And I don't think you showed anywhere that "Air Lock Diving-Bell Plant" was "an Admiralty vessel with a proper name". You said "The titles vary that's why I combined them." Which is it? Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw this section when I was commenting above. The editor implies in the discussion that they named the article themselves using a composite name, so in this case Dicklyon is correct. It is not a proper name, although named in good faith, but a creative combination of two descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

He did say that, but there are a few sources that use that exact name, too (like here, in a sentence, lowercase and generic sounding). Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Admiralty bought it as a Caisson Diving Bell Barge, I went with a simpler title for the masses, is all. As the author I should have the last word? Broichmore (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep out of further comments, as not a ships expert. This has been brought to the right place, and further comments and a final decision would probably best be reached here. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Broichmore, what you did is WP:OR. Follow what the sources use. If the source called it a caisson diving bell barge, then that is what the article should be called. If you want to rename the thing, write your own book. We use WP:RS to distinguish titles, not whatever we make up. 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Llammakey 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Were it so simple. Where is the sense of good faith? I always try my best to follow policy. There was no OR as such, what I did was amalgamate multiple similar titles from different sources. The fact that there is a different Admiralty title surfaced late in the game (and even later in my mind). Just to make it complicated the Admiralty title has never been in common usage. Still, I well take your point. Policy can never be perfect. It's not cast in stone, it should evolve with the project. Broichmore (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

On this subject, I refer to my comment above on caps for the title of a "work". Such capping would apply to the actual title used for the work. There may be some exceptions for commonly used alternative titles (falling to WP:COMMONNAME) per the fuller guidance pertaining to titles of works but my recollection is that these are usually shortened versions of the fuller name, IAW standard conventions (ie conventions outside WP). A composite name would not, therefore, fall within such. As such, it would appear that the present name should probably be decapped, since there is unlikely to be evidence in sources (per MOS:CAPS) to support it being capped. What should be the title of the article is another question and I would need to consider arguement for a change if it is proposed. However, I am neutral (ATM) on whether a change is required. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:VPP

At Dicklyon's suggestion I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters. No doubt someone will want to change it to a more elegant title. Feel free. Broichmore (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a suggestion as an unlikely possibility. Doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it went well for a WP discussion, certainly you discount it totally, because it's not telling you what you want to hear; on what is a trivial matter at the end of the day. Clearly there is insufficient interest to get the numbers to make a needed policy change. Making changes to the English language, instituting a rule where there was not one before is akin to Original research. I'm astounded your getting away it. Broichmore (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the Wikipedia capitalization guidelines in place, but I do follow them. And yes it's telling me that "there is insufficient interest to get the numbers to make a needed policy change" which is what I expected. The change you suggest would be incredibly disruptive across all topic areas. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any change to the titles that's the point. The English language rule is that there is no rule. Just as there are anomalies for a whole host of other issues. Example: spelling, depending on country, Oxford or Cambridge, newspaper, or country. This topic started because I could not see the point in changing the title, from caps to small, when the industry I come from uses caps as does the majority of the English speaking world. I was defending my title from unneeded change.

The rule (rather publishing practise) is to be consistent on a page, You know that. Just as you know it's not the projects remit to creatively make one; which is unofficially Oxford University's if not the Queen's privilege. This whole topic is over something 99.9 percent of the population doesn't notice or care about. Its the kind of false rule that makes the language rigid, English is the most powerful language in part because of its flexibility. However your actions or policing on this nit picking piece of uniformity, plays havoc with software links and redirects, destroying the follow on of reader scores which is exactly how you annoyed me (on my DYK submittal) in the first place. For you to imply that I am putting forward some disruptive notion is absurd, given your renaming tiles is exactly that. Oh, and by the way I said as much (about no rule) 3 days before your last comment in the other place (WP:VPP). Still thanks to your intransigence and advocacy of this style instruction, clarification was needed; it has focused on the notion that the policy requires changing to that of no rule as described here. Result no disruption or at least a brake on it. Broichmore (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Where we are now

Dicklyon After just reading all that's been said in various different places, we seem to be not much further forward than the discussions of 2013. See Talk:Motor_Gun_Boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013, Talk:Harbour_Defence_Motor_Launch#Requested_move_20_October_2013 etc. Indeed I just noticed an interesting conversation with Andy Dingley for the first time at Talk:Air lock diving-bell plant, where you persist in the notion that the bell is no different to a washing machine. My question is, where do we stand now? It would seem there is no clear consensus for your proposals, never mind mine. So it's a stalemate. Do you agree to no change as such, or are you to persist with your usual attitude of, having decided the answer already, and remaining uninterested in any sourcing or evidence to the contrary, paying only lip service here, of imposing your dogma that all capitalisation must be removed. There is a thread here and in other similar discussions of when the dust has settled just starting again, ploughing your own furrow. No doubt deterring fledgling editors from ever attempting an article again. I certainly don't relish having to go cap in hand to you every time we name an article. Broichmore (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'm proposing any changes. I just go by WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Most new articles get created with title-case titles whether they're proper names or not, so there's always work to do. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed you carry on with an agenda sanctioned only by yourself, something that is unwanted and against the norm of the English language as we know it. Do you honestly think that every creator of an article doesn't put thought into the style of the title. So every time you change it your doing something without that persons agreement. Many against the one it would see. Some of us know when to let stupid rules lie. Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Title is too verbose

Why "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109"? Surely the common name is just PT-109 (as Randy noted) and the disambiguated name should be PT-109 (boat), in the same style as PT-109 (film) and the rest. "PT" in the name already tells you that it's a patrol torpedo boat. Regardless of capitalization, I wouldn't want to see HMAS Sirius (O 266) renamed to "Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sirius" or "Her Majesty's Australian ship Sirius" or "Fleet Replenishment Vessel HMAS Sirius" or "Fleet replenishment vessel HMAS Sirius". Pinging Dicklyon even though lower-casing change went through. Note I wrote most of this before seeing that several people at that talk section mentioned the short name option, and the closer's suggestion of a separate RM. Yes, that would mean revising the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships with hull number only —Pelagic (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As a counter-argument, I note the analogy between "US torpedo boat PT-109" and "Japanese battleship Yamato". But in the latter case we also have a "Japanese corvette Yamato", so there's a disambiguating function there. Is there also an analogy to "Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." or "His Royal Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales"? Pelagic (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• What does "too verbose" mean? WP doesn't get to edit names because it thinks the designated name is "too long"! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think he means that prepending "Motor torpedo boat" is excessive for a boat named PT-109. The boat's title is short, yet we make the article's title long. I tend to agree. My original proposal was a bit shorter, but still trying to respect the project convention. I have no strong opinion on this though. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the full official title is "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109" as it is on its main page. "PT-109" is a tad better than a nickname, on its own it could be the recipe for a loaf of bread. Strangely that's why it has its own diambig page PT-109. Secondly Dickylyon despite his obviously great intelligence and abilities consistently doesn't understand what a title actually is, and that in the English it is in caps. Witness, right here a shortened version of an official name is a title. Duh! Scattered all over the project (easily found and too numerous to mention) are discussions on this titles topic where he has failed to get clear consensus and yet he continues to pedal on. Dick stop wasting everyone's time and test your sophist theories by changing this page en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters to letter case and see where it gets you. Once again, in his own words, (thousands) the majority of article creators use caps. They are all wrong and he's right he thinks. Broichmore (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a pretty broad consensus behind WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right. For a rule to be continuously argued about after it is drafted year upon year is a giveaway that it was wrong in the first place. Good legislation puts to bed dissension, and becomes as natural as breathing. It was poorly drafted, wrong in part, and riddled with contradictions to begin with in 2002 and 2008, in the projects infancy, by a handful of self elected people (mostly gone) and has hung around like an Albatross ever since. Obviously it was prudently ignored in part by the many in favour of natural English, because nothing gets changed here. How ridiculous Nutbush City Limits is approved in caps because it's a song and yet the place is Nutbush city limits; or here the most famous PT boat in history is small case in a title. So what if history books and the USN give out contradictory ways of handing the title, that's to be expected because in English there is no hard and fast rule. You're lucky we're not following the style guide in Debrett's Correct Form published in 1976, or all titles would be in caps. As soon as we follow established English usage the arguments will melt away. Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on the USS Arizona article

User Lanemiker (talk) has been engaging in an edit war with me over the proper style of rendering the turret numbers of the ship. I used Roman numerals because that's what the damage reports by the US Navy used, but Lanemiker asserts that the navy used Arabic numerals without providing any evidence. This isn't our first interaction as we had a long edit war over the categorization of the Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber in the article that only ended when another editor intervened. I believe Lanemiker has chosen this turret numbering issue out of a desire to declare some sort of victory over me, rather than any factual basis, and he seems to have fixated on the article as his method of choice. I'd like an admin to look into this admittedly trivial issue and issue the appropriate warnings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Warned, next step banhammer. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

He just reverted to his preferred text, so bring on the hammer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

And again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gave him a final warning, though I don't know how much good it'll do. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Me neither, but we can only wait and see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO number conflicts

Back in 2015, this WikiProject asked for a bot to create redirects for all IMO numbers, which was implemented as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 73. I noticed today that the Category:IMO Number the bot had been using was moved to Category:IMO numbers last year, and while I was fixing that I noticed that the bot was logging that there are some cases where multiple articles claim to be for the same ship. For example, MS Jupiter and MS Svea Corona both claim to be IMO 7360186 (the latter article seems to be IMO 7360174 instead), and Italian training ship Italia and Swan fan Makkum both claim IMO 8872825 (looks like two articles about the same ship). I thought you might find a list of such conflicts useful, so I updated the bot to create one at User:AnomieBOT/IMO number conflicts as it does its daily run looking for redirects to create/update. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a really useful little bot. At a glance, many of them are pairs of very short articles which could well be merged uncontroversially. I've corrected MS Svea Corona noted above, and had a go at one merger (Brazilian research ship Barão de Teffé and Thala Dan). If I haven't done that right, please let me know on my talk page. Davidships (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have personally never understood the need of creating two separate articles for the same ship (reflecting different parts of the ship's career) if the individual articles end up being very short. I'm all in for merging e.g. Mutsu (nuclear ship) and RV Mirai. Tupsumato (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

...not to mention a number of other articles that seem to have been created by mistake. I might work on this later today. In the meanwhile, I fixed a few "clean" IMO number conflicts. Tupsumato (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe asking the impossible, but is there a way of checking whether or not the IMO numbers we have, are in the first place, correct? Broichmore (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are just talking about those flagged up by the bot, no problem. For the current log:

• IMO 6709804: USNS Mission San Jose, USS Tomahawk (AO-88). Complicated! These two ships, as well as USNS Mission San Diego (and others?), were chopped up and reassembled to become container/roro/rail/cargo ships and it was, I think only at that point that each vessel got unique LR 7-digit numbers (later considered IMO numbers). In these cases, going forward, the IMO number 'sticks' with the section containing the engine-room as, whatever happens, each ship only has one of those. That said, the three articles actually have the right numbers in the text, just the infoboxes wrong on two of the three. Now corrected.
• IMO 7318901: John J. Boland (1973 ship), MV John J. Boland. Duplicate articles - same ship, same name, right IMO. merge essential
• IMO 7360198: MS Arberia, MV AMET Majesty. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge to MS Arberia
• IMO 7920003: BNS Dhaleshwari, HMS Leeds Castle (P258). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - based on content, to BNS Dhaleshwari
• IMO 7920015: BNS Bijoy, HMS Dumbarton Castle (P265). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - based on content, to BNS Bijoy
• IMO 8835114: NOAAS Okeanos Explorer, USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge to NOAAS Okeanos Explorer already tagged
• IMO 8835308: MV Governor, MV Kulshan. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - the over-wordy mostly-unreferenced MV Kulshan needs a major edit
• IMO 8872825: Italian training ship Italia, Swan fan Makkum. Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Merge - note MarineTraffic link doesn't work as IMO not in their database - confirmed from Equasis
• IMO 9079456: Brazilian amphibious assault ship Atlântico, HMS Ocean (L12). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Possible merge
• IMO 9107277: FS Eger, Marjata. Same ship, same navy, diff name, right IMO. Merge, already tagged

Four more to look at later. Davidships (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• IMO 9280897: HSC T&T Spirit, USAV Spearhead (TSV-1X). Same ship, diff name, right IMO. Possible merge - tagged but one contrary view
• IMO 9675470: RV MTA Oruç Reis, RV MTA Turkuaz. Same ship, different name, right IMO. Never in service as MTA Turkuaz, and after 4½ months service name modified to Oruç Reis. Merge essential, perhaps to current name as already 2 years in service as such
• IMO 9692571: Novorossiysk (icebreaker), Project 21900 icebreaker. One is specific ship, other ship-class with table of vessels, IMO correct. Seems OK (same applies to other four vessels of class)
• IMO 9804033: Arctech Helsinki Shipyard, MT Yuriy Kuchiev. One is specific ship, other shipbuilder article with table of vessels, IMO correct. Seems OK (same applies to several other vessels); and there is also List of ships built at Hietalahti shipyard (401 onwards) though the IMO numbers on that table are not linked

Davidships (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I requested the "pure IMO number" linking feature to the {{IMO number}} template some time ago for ship list use. Perhaps the bot could be modified to look only to {{infobox ship begin}} for the IMO number conflicts? Tupsumato (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The bot doesn't look at the article itself at all. It looks at the sortkeys used in Category:IMO numbers, where each article's sortkey is the IMO number. Where multiple articles use the same number, the bot picks one at random if the IMO number redirect doesn't exist but does not change an existing redirect's target if the current target is also in the category using the number. It also won't overwrite a non-redirect. So if you wanted to you could make the IMO number page itself into a disambiguation page, or redirect it to a dab page and make sure the dab is in Category:IMO numbers. Anomie⚔ 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Different question. As there is a range of clearly legitimate reasons for an individual IMO number appearing in more than one article in WP, how should the IMO number be linked? At present it just links to one of those destinations. Davidships (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we have something similar as those pages where coordinates link to - a collection of resources to which the IMO number can point? This way we wouldn't favor any service and could provide links to other resources than just AIS (shipspotting.com, for example). Much of this could be generated by a bot by crawling through the template as the url formats should be fairly standard. Tupsumato (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate template(s)

Hi! I have found the following duplicate, which is within the scope of this project:

• Template:Furor-class destroyer
• Template:Furor class destroyer

I am not sure what the standard procedure is for such cases, perhaps an experienced editor could have a look. UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Found

Update

• Template:D'Assas class cruiser, Template:D'Assas-class cruiser
• Template:Descartes class cruiser, Template:Descartes-class cruiser

Found two more pairs. -- UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat

A discussion on "Wikidata:Project chat" about the Wikidata Infobox as seen at Commons ship categories. see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Ships Broichmore (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)