Talk:HMCS Charlottetown (1941)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: consensus in favour of the proposed move. Courcelles (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

HMCS Charlottetown (K244) (Flower class corvette) → HMCS Charlottetown (1941) — Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), articles should be disambiguated by pennant number if available, and year of launching if not. However, Charlottetown shares her name and pennant with HMCS Charlottetown (K244) (River class frigate), which make it an unideal disambiguator, and they are currently disambiguated by a block of text in a second set of brackets. I'm proposing that the two articles be renamed to use the year of launching as the disambiguating text, per the broader ship naming convention. -- saberwyn 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ships that do not have classes could be documented by year, but we do have a class that makes the ship unambiguous, so, I think a better choice would be HMCS Charlottetown (Flower class) , which is more likely to be remembered instead of a year, and more like what people would actually call the ship in regular speech (ie. "... the Flower-class HMCS Charlottetown was based in ..." Additionally, the two years are closely spaced together, easily engendering confusion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, in response to 70.29, that is what we have redirects for. Any sort of (___ class) in an article title looks extremely messy to me, and it is common practice to use the launch year as a dab. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as the "convention" of using pennant number as disambiguatory suffixes is unsustainable for pre-1948 RN vessels. Unlike the US hull serial number system (where any ship kept its serial number for life, and serial numbers were allocated sequentially), for the British Navy - and many other navies - the pennant number system was open to alteration, often more than once, during a vessel's life; also, the pennant numbers were usually allocated unsequentially, new vessels taking any gap in the numbers that might be unused at the time of allocation. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - it's a "no brainer". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Disambiguating ships with the same name says "For modern ships, use the ship's hull numbers (hull classification symbols) (for the United States Navy) or pennant numbers (for the Royal Navy and many European and Commonwealth navies) if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known." Clearly the pennant numbers are not sufficiently unique, therefore it should be disambiguated by year of launch. I'm not even sure why you're discussing this, since it's clearly already covered by the Naming Convention! Shem (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.