Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Sources: addl./answer
Line 293: Line 293:
::::In ''Mediterranean MTBs at War: Short MTB Flotilla Operations, 1939-1945'', I can't see anything online. Do they just use the caps in the context of defining the acronyms?
::::In ''Mediterranean MTBs at War: Short MTB Flotilla Operations, 1939-1945'', I can't see anything online. Do they just use the caps in the context of defining the acronyms?
::::What's your opinion on the relative quality of the various sources? Are you thinking there's anything approaching consistent capitalization in certain uses of the terms? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
::::What's your opinion on the relative quality of the various sources? Are you thinking there's anything approaching consistent capitalization in certain uses of the terms? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Coastal Forces Heritage Trust - agreed, there is a lot of capitalisation generally<br/>London Gazette - the feature here is inconsistency, but (without doing a precise count) I would guess it is 25% caps for Motor Torpedo Boat/motor torpedo boat and 50% caps for High Speed Launch/high speed launch.<br/>Mediterranean MTBs - there is just an initial use of capitalised Motor Torpedo Boat and then the book uses "boat" or "MTB" throughout, without the long form.<br/>In terms of quality, Mediterranean MTBs appears to be a definitive well-researched book written by 2 authors who served on these boats in WW2 in the Med. The memoirs "Stand by for Action" is well written, both for readability and use of English, but I guess memoirs are always a step back from being a [[WP:RS]] versus a more independent source. The Times speaks for itself on quality, but I have not researched other uses of the term, just looked up someone with an obituary who I knew served in MTBs (could look up Peter Scott, but out of time now). Peter Scott served in MTBs and had a relatively senior position in Coastal Forces by the end of WW2 and has written a good amount of books on other subjects - so probably OK on use of English.<br/>Trying to take an independent, scientific view of sources, and going against my instincts to use capitalisation to increase clarity for the reader, it does appear more common to see uncapitalised "motor torpedo boat". Some of this occurs when the writer is differentiating between generic boats of this type and the RN boats (as mentioned for Donald, immediately above), but most appears to be just the style of the writer. Overall uncapitalised usage appears to be more common, but caps are definitely used by some.[[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 10:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


* Fortunately we don't have articles on [[Dog Boats]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
* Fortunately we don't have articles on [[Dog Boats]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:30, 18 January 2020

WikiProject iconShips Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articlesWikiProject icon
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

Scow or sailing scow?

Our article on the scow defines the type as "a type of flat-bottomed sailboat." It then goes on to give a bunch of examples of such sailboats.

However, if you look at almost any dictionary definition, it defines a scow as a type of barge; usually unpowered, and typically "carrying bulk material in an open hold".[1][2][3] The latter is certainly the definition I come across most often and am most familiar with; I never even heard of a sailing scow until looking at the wikipedia article.

The question then, is, should the article on "scow" be moved to "sailing scow" - which would seem to be the type described in the article? We could then use the "scow" namespace for the barge type. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of the three dictionaries referenced include sailboats in the definition, as does OED, and they are all watercraft with a common feature of being flat-bottomed. I don't see any advantage in having separate articles, unless an expanded article gets too long. Davidships (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article is entirely about sailboats, and even if you added material about the barge type, it would be a relatively tiny addition even though it appears to be the more common usage. So I'm still inclined to the view that this article should be moved to "Sailing scow", and the "scow" namespace used for the barge type, or perhaps as a disambiguation page pointing to the "sailing scow" and barge articles, with info on the scow added to the barge article. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates a bigger problems with the names of things nautical - the tendency for one name to apply to two different things. For example:
Yawl: the rig (2 masts, one stepped abaft the sternpost) – Yawl: the open boat, clinker built, often beach-launched, usually lug-rigged (and definitely not "yawl rigged") (e.g. Norfolk and Sussex beach yawls) – Yawl: decked fishing vessel, originally 2 masted lugger and then ketch rigged in later years (e.g. the Scarborough Yawl)
Cutter: the rig (single mast, 2 or more headsails) – Cutter: the naval ship's boat, next size up from a whaler/whaleboat (so, often 32ft), usually 2 masted dipping lug rigged – Cutter: patrol vessel used by customs/coastguard/etc, may be anything from a cutter-rigged sailing vessel (historic) to a modern diesel-engined ship.
Punt: Flat bottomed leisure craft propelled by a pole – Punt: a general working boat propelled by oar and sail, usually undecked (but Falmouth Quay Punt is the obvious exception).
In every case, how does an article deal with 2 relatively unrelated subjects? Either you somehow fit both into one article, or you have 2 articles with a very clear route to the other article at the start of each. Some thoughts on this might be helpful - I am no fan of absolute style standards, but this seems to be a case where some discussion of how to deal with the problem would help.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Patrol navbox

Hi. I've tried looking for a list of ships in the Dover Patrol but have not been able to locate one. I've drafted up a new navbox to help navigate between related articles but thought it would be worth getting your views before implementing it on so many articles. The list has been formed from ships named in:

  • Dunn, Steve R (2017). Securing the Narrow Sea; The Dover Patrol 1914-1918. Barnsley, UK: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 9781848322516.

I have linked the list to either our named article or the class article where the ship is listed (rether than redlink). However, there are many ships not included in the list (the book refers to 131 unnamed net drifters, 70 trawlers and 31 "MLs and CMBs" among others). The navbox is currently sitting in my sandbox. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to add a few more names using Bacon's book on the Dover Patrol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the desirability of having the template but I do think linking to the class article rather than having a red link when an article for the individual ship has not been created is problematical. On the one hand it does allow a reader to find out some details about the individual ship but on the other so often when an individual article is created the template is not amended to make a direct link. A red link slots right in providing the article and template both have the correct dab. Lyndaship (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Thinking through what you have said, I have the following proposal:
  1. I set up a List of ships of the Dover Patrol, which includes all sourced vessels in the patrol. If their name is sourced but we don't have an article, they are included as a redlink (with a corresponding blue link to their class article). If we don't have a source for a name but we have a reference to the number of that type of vessel then I will just add a comment like, "The patrol included at least 70 trawlers. Trawlers that have been named by reliable sources are..."
  2. The navbox includes blue links to articles only and no class articles. Ships without articles are excluded until an article is created, with the justification that navboxes are a navigational aid between existing articles, not a list of information.
  3. A guidance document is provided with the navbox (with noinclude tags) to direct editors to only add blue link articles to the navbox. The guidance will also encourage editors to add ships without articles to the list instead of the navbox (so long as the names are reliably sourced).
  4. One of the entries in the navbox is a link to the list article.
Is this a workable solution or are there other complications that I am overlooking? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this some more, I'd be opposed to adding it to the ship's articles as that would then lead to some editor deciding that the 1st Battle Squadron would deserve the same sort of treatment and we'd end up with a lot of collapsed navboxes at the bottom of the articles which would track their units of assignment throughout their careers. Generally, I'm tracking a ship's history, not the various units that it was assigned to, and I'm indifferent to the other ships that served in the unit because I'd add a link in the body of the article if it was significant to the ship I'm working on.
I do think that it would be useful for the article on the Dover Patrol since I seriously doubt that you'd mention every ship that ever served in it in the article itself as many ships didn't actually have much action while assigned there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. Some ships were allocated to certain formations for a matter of hours or days to support in particular battles. If my navbox idea was scaled up to include every Royal Navy formation, that could take up the bulk of the article for ships of limited notability. I'll scrap the navbox and just produce the list, linked from the Dover Patrol article; individual editors can decide whether to link to the article or straight to the list. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the definite article

I've just been over at WP:NC-SHIP. There was a move to ban use of the definite article, no consensus to do that was reached, and yet some unknown has gone ahead anyway and changed the guidelines. Also at some point someone inserted you could call a ship, he. Broichmore (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page history of WP:NC-SHIP doesn't show any such changes that I can see. Davidships (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. Next time I'm in London I'll investigate what I'm doing wrong. Unfortunately I'm abroad and looking at the site through a letterbox opening which is not helpful. Broichmore (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image of The Enterprize in the History of Melbourne article, and others

The original is in the collection of the State Library of Victoria, and the title is: Founding of Melbourne / Landing from the Yarra Basin / August 29th 1835 [picture].

--Lenore10 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That looks like a very interesting source. I'm not planning to do anything with the Enterprise image but they have some files on other subjects I'm working on. I'll upload the ones I need to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tweaked the code on your original post so it doesn't wrap around my own comment. I've also set the file name you included so our Commons version of the image appears as a thumb. I see that the Commons version is of a much lower quality than that available at your link. I'll ask for advice at Commons on the best way to upload a replacement version. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement file now available at File:The Enterprise at the founding of Melbourne, 29 August 1835.jpg if anyone wants to use it. One point to note is that the higher resolution reveals the unknown artist used the "Enterprise" spelling for the ship. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a later engraving made from this watercolour painting here, perhaps the same 1885 one in Harper's Weekly as referenced in the painting's reference file?
I've added a note re spelling to the Lead at Enterprize (1829). Another point: according to the infobox the article should be at Enterprize (1830), with a redirect from Enterprise (1830), but that launch year is presently sourced to date of original registration - that document will state the date of completion, but not usually of launch (though for sailing vessels of that era they were usually only a few days apart). Davidships (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation (yet again)

Once again, we have a crusade to strip all capitalisation from article titles. In this case it's the RN / RAF small motor boat types:

[4]

So far the A has been reverted (undiscussed, naturally), but from past experience I expect the others will follow inevitably at any moment. For all of these, they're clear examples where the RN / RAF capitalised the parent term as a specific service type, far more than "motorised launches", "high-speed launches" etc. We should follow that, per our usual rules for capitalisation where there is such a distinct and recognised group.

See the past discussions at:

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "crusade" is a bit of an exaggeration here. Looking at the B article, an editor capitalised the name yesterday then reverted themselves. You then restored the capitalisation. On the A article, you capitalised the article name with the claim that you were restoring an earlier capitalisation; another editor reverted your move on the basis that it was the original title, so couldn't be "restored" to a non-existent name. It looks to me like a misunderstanding. I would advise a simple discussion with the editors involved prior to escalating the matter. Escalating the situation will often entrench existing view points when a few calm words will nip most problems in the bud. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it seems like a crusade by Andy to capitalize anything that the Royal Navy has ever listed capped in a table. The Fairmile A motor launch and Fairmile B motor launch articles were stable for a long time at lower case, if I'm reading their histories correctly. Why the sudden capitaizing campaign here? Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And your (only) edit to the Niagara Cantilever Bridge article came less than ten minutes after Andy edited it - no one around here is stupid, Dicklyon, so do us a favor and cut the crap. "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that missing comma was in no way likely to cause distress; it was not tendentious or personal or disruptive in any way, and certainly not controversial. It was not a correction of any error of Andy's except that he didn't notice it when he moved that footnote. So you're saying it's a problem that I noticed and fixed it? Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better question to ask is whether I should be annoyed or disappointed that you apparently think I'm stupid enough to buy that load of bullshit. We both know what you're doing. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't notice it via his contribs; nobody would buy that claim, I agree. But what are you accusing me of? Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hounding him, obviously. Try reading the green text I posted above and then square your behavior with it. Parsecboy (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was squaring with when I wrote "Adding that missing comma was in no way likely to cause distress; it was not tendentious or personal or disruptive in any way, and certainly not controversial. It was not a correction of any error of Andy's except that he didn't notice it when he moved that footnote." What part of that do you disagree with? Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, what you are doing is the equivalent of holding your finger half an inch in front of someone's face saying "I'm not touching you!" I would be beyond ashamed to be acting so childishly. Parsecboy (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one appears to be covering themselves with glory in this conversation. I would advise liberal application of WP:TROUT and a break from the conversation for a few hours or days. Wikipedia will still be here after everyone has cooled off. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP appears to be far from an accurate representation of the "facts". The A-D articles have all been long-term stable as lc titles. The B article is as noted by From Hill To Shore. For the A and C articles, the OP claims the move to UC is to reinstate the caps. The D article was only capped last year after a long life at lc. There appears to be something terribly wrong with the whole premise of the OP and much that follows. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had not looked at the C and D articles, but after you pointed these out, I went and undid the recent undiscussed capitalizations there; OP Andy just did the C today. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't work from inertia, but from sourcing. Sourcing abounds to support the official RN title for these classes as being capitalised. Admittedly some sources also use the uncapitalised form too, but the problem here has been the cherry-picking to use only the uncapitalised form, because that fits with an evident bias from a particular editor (look at their editing history across all topics, for some years!). When sources have been used specifically to support HSL or ML, they're simply reverted or even mis-used to support this same opinion. The end result is just a matter of who is most willing to edit-war the most and that is not how we should operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, capitalisation of an article title requires empirical evidence that the title is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Given that it is you making these changes to cap, the onus falls to you by virtue of the guidelines to show why the titles should be capped, more so that this is a change to the status qou. WP:SSF touches upon the "independence" of RN sources in this matter. Relying on only RN sources can equally be construed as cherry-picking. Even then, I see no "evidence" of the "sourcing" to which you refer. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS does not make a case: this is not how we work. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Cinderella157 and DickLyon. This over-capitalizing is yet another WP:Specialized-style fallacy. We have guidelines for a reason, and there's nothing special about this case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet those stubborn little sources just refuse to play ball:
  1. "High Speed Launch 102". Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust.
  2. "High Speed Launch 102". National Historic Ships UK.
  3. "Rescue Motor Launch RML 497 - WWII Rescue Vessel Safely Arrives At New Home". Forces Network.
  4. "Harbour Defence Motor Launch 1837". HMS Medusa Trust.
  5. "Rescue Motor Launch 497 - Wartime Motor Launch given new lease of life". Royal Navy.
  6. "Motor Launch of the Fairmile B class". U-boat.net.
Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at what those sources support:
  1. "High Speed Launch 102". Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust. This sentence: "High Speed Launch (HSL) 102, commissioned in 1936, is the only 100 class high speed, air/sea rescue launch to survive." suggests that they may think of "High Speed Launch 102" as the proper name of a craft (or maybe they just capped High Speed Launch for defining the acronym HSL, which is something we don't do). And the generic descriptor they use is "high speed, air/sea rescue launch".
  2. "High Speed Launch 102". National Historic Ships UK. This one uses "High Speed Launch" in a table entry, not in a sentence; perhaps they're treating it as a proper name.
  3. "Rescue Motor Launch RML 497 - WWII Rescue Vessel Safely Arrives At New Home". Forces Network. Treats "Rescue Motor Launch 497" as the proper name of a vessel. No other use of "launch".
  4. "Harbour Defence Motor Launch 1837". HMS Medusa Trust. In which "is a Harbour Defence Motor Launch" suggests they treat that term as a proper name.
  5. "Rescue Motor Launch 497 - Wartime Motor Launch given new lease of life". Royal Navy. Treats "Rescue Motor Launch 497" as a proper name; also "around 650 launches" as generic.
  6. "Motor Launch of the Fairmile B class". U-boat.net. Has "motor launches ML 121, ML 130, ..." indicating generic use of "motor launch".
So, yes, treatment is mixed, as already stipulated. Most capped uses that you found are in the names of specific vessels, not types. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping back from all the detailed arguments: what is the purpose of capitalisation? I had always assumed that (in this context) it denoted a particular class of vessel – i.e. one where someone had established a particular specification, defined a precise role, or otherwise created an identifiable category. So "High Speed Launch" denotes (in my understanding of ordinary English) a launch of high speed that meets a certain set of parameters – whether those are "used by the Royal Navy/RAF for named purposes", "built to specification X", or whatever. Whereas "high speed launch" is just a launch that goes fast – so this could be the tender to a millionaire's yacht, a power-boat enthusiast's latest toy, etc. - as well as a "High Speed Launch". Any absolute use of a capitalisation rule removes this distinction.
This also explains why a source could possibly use capitalisation in one situation and not in another, because there may be 2 different meanings intended.
I note that WP:SSF is simply an essay on the subject, so whilst something to take into account, it provides no over-riding principle. I also find its arguments to be a little strained: I think Wikipedia would look somewhat unauthoritative to an encyclopedia user who finds that we use one capitalisation convention, when specialist sources use another. What is the point of using an WP:RS if Wikipedia output then decides to go its own way?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fairmile B Motor Launch
RN motor boat (on the port stern davit)
ThoughtIdRetired makes a good point - the purpose of capitalization in this case is to differentiate a specific type of small, fast boats with specific, definable characteristics, from the general concept of a small, fast boat. A friend of mine who lives just outside NYC resides in an Empire State building - you know, a building in the Empire State. Capitalization matters. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is what I tried to bring up at Talk:Motor_Launch#Two_articles_on_motor_launch?, but let's work on it here more centrally instead. If we're really trying to convey an important distinction by mere capitalization difference, we should probably try to find sources that make it clear what that distinction is, and be more clear about it in our terminology. So far, I'm not seeing it in the sources that Andy has put forward. At the same time, he continues to create over-capitalized articles and sections with no such possible rationale, possibly just to poke me with more caps to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the only editing I ever see you do is a crusade to remove capitalisation from wherever you find it, across any subject, no matter how little you know of that subject. It's that simple: you do this, you do it with no foundation, you do it to prioritise a styling essay over our fundamentals on sourcing, and you don't do anything else. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look at my user page and my contribs if you want to see what else I do. It's true that a lot of it is style gnoming (case fixes, comma fixes, dash fixes, etc.). Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, there's only one thing "stubborn" and "refus[ing] to play ball" here, and it's a particular "my way or the highway" editor. There's yet another obvious fallacy at work here: "I can find some sources that capitalise, ergo WP must capitalise." If the sources (all sources, not just specialized/official ones) aren't consistently capitalizing with near-uniformity, then WP will not either. First rule of MOS:CAPS. Besides, we've already found official navy sources that don't capitalize them (see, e.g., this by Shem1805. So the entire "But it's official!" line of so-called reasoning is just bankrupt. All that said, continuing to argue about this in the wikiproject is an utter waste of time. Like most specialist entrenchments, the preponderance of editors participating in this topical project have topically circumscribed style preferences from a specialized writing circle which other editors (and more importantly, the vast majority of our readers) are not likely to agree is how to write an general-audience encyclopedia. So, this really needs to be addressed via WP:RM, and without WP:CANVASSING for a wikiproject bloc vote. Let the community as a whole review it and come to a consensus decision. The entire reason we have RM as a centralized process is to thwart the ability of wikiprojects and other little clusters of editors to force unencyclopedic titles on everyone one. Trying to arrive at a result on the wikiproject page is virtually guaranteed to be a WP:FALSECONSENSUS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Launch

Back to the question of whether there's a proper name Motor Launch distinct from the generic motor launch, and if so, how should we distinguish them. Does anyone want to comment here, or at Talk:Motor_Launch#Two_articles_on_motor_launch?? I'm not at all sure what to do here. If there's a proper name of a type in there, where are the supporting sources for that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the question of whether there's a proper name Motor Launch distinct from the generic motor launch,"
There is no such question. The answer is obviously yes. Motor Launch should be a set index (or a very simple article) and we can link to the articles for Fairmile A Motor Launch et al for the details of each class. The HSLs shouldn't be in that article (except maybe as a See also) because they're fundamentally different craft and don't have the same offensive purpose. The earlier CMB and HDML classes could be, because they're much more similar in purpose, even if earlier, smaller and slower.
So when Epipelagic added the Whaleback HSL back in 2007, that must have been a classification error. Where can we find the definitions of these classes? The articles remain mostly unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Motor launch already redirects to launch (boat) and is fine there. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we having this discussion? Is it here or at Talk:Motor_Launch#Two_articles_on_motor_launch??. If it is here, then the other discussion should be closed, with a note directing it here. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flexible. Looks like it has moved here since I got nothing there after early Jan. 5. I'll close with a link to here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above (saved in same edit as this one). Trying to decide this issue in a bastion of "our topic is magically special" over-capitalization is a waste of time, and the site-wide, topically neutral WP:RM process exists for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me the caps look like an example of commercial boosterism. Fine for the company name (and the "A" or "B", by convention), but that doesn't mean other publications have to go along with the company's advertising pitch. Tony (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the company didn't choose the name. The naming convention (and capitalisation) dates from at least twenty years earlier, by the navy, when the WWI boats were named as "CMBs" and then later "HDMLs". This in a navy which was already happy with numerous "picket boats" (uncapitalised), "motor whalers" etc, because those weren't specific classes, to a specific design. But the capitalised classes were. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://convoycu49-1944.com/files/RED_LIST_Part_II_MINOR_WAR_VESSELS_ABROAD_-_13_December_1944_-_May_10_2019_Binder.pdf

High Speed Launch

In this revert, Andy accuses me of "a serious breach of NPOV", whatever that means, in changing High Speed Launch to a lower-case link to high-speed launch (an article I created). The context is in the boat "BPB 63 ft High Speed Launch", or the type "63 ft BPB high-speed launch" as it appears in this source. I'm not finding any rational basis for treatment of the type as a proper name here. What sources am I missing that Andy is relying on? The ones he presented above don't really go there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already reverted that comment, when I realised that your change was made some days earlier than your last change. I still disagree with it, but it's not that you were doing it in the middle of an ongoing discussion, as I'd thought.
You didn't revert that edit summary, but yes I saw that you reverted a separate comment about it elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your book is hyphenating the term, because it's clearly using it as an adjectival phrase (as is the more common use, outside the RN too). However that doesn't stop it existing as the specific and capitalised name, for a specific class of boats, which is attested from sources already here such as the RN themselves, the RN's historical preservation teams, and the National Historic Fleet register. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the hyphenation for the adjective form, but that doesn't suggest that the noun form be capped. How do your sources present these? Can you show some quotes? Any available online or to purchase? Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the sources at the article you did the revert on do not support capitalization of the various boat types. They use things like "pocket torpedo boat" and "high-speed motor torpedo boat". The one with "manned motor torpedo boat flotillas" also notes that "Originally designed as Motor Gun Boats (M.G.B.'s), they were redesigned Motor Torpedo Boats." in reference to the 70' SCOTT - PAINE TYPE G-TYPE. So here they're capping for something, but not telling us why. If you can find us sources that clarify what the capped phrases mean, we can consider them. But if they're really just the peculiar specialized style of the RN, it's not clear that will have much to say for us, in light the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Torpedo Boat

Along the same lines, are there any sources in support of a proper name interpretation for Motor Torpedo Boat? I know we've talked about this before, but I can't find any sources supporting the capitalization. In books, we find caps in the context of Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron, Motor Torpedo Boat Flotilla, Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons, Motor Torpedo Boat Training, but lowercase in all other contexts. That is, the caps are always as part of some longer proper name or title. If there's a class of uses where Motor Torpedo Boat is properly capped as the name of a class, I'm not finding it. Anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Motor Torpedo Boat lead "Motor Torpedo Boat (MTB) was the name given to fast torpedo boats by the Royal Navy ..." is not the way we usually make leads. The article should be about the boats, not about the name. This seems to be a strained way to invoke a specialized style right into the lead sentence to justify the caps. Bad idea. That came in from PBS in this edit in 2005 with summary "removed information which appears on the torpedo boat page, so this becomes Royal Navy specific". If being RN specific is supposed to justify caps, where are the sources that make that clear? Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given much thought to this issue, but given that we don't capitalize type names like "cruiser" or "battleship", why would we want to capitalize them for much smaller vessels, like motor launches? It looks inconsistent and incongruous to me. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat reluctantly (because my instinct is to capitalise), I offer the books by Peter Scott (Battle of the Narrow Seas) and Peter Dickens (Night Action : MTB Flotilla at War Bantam Books (1974) ISBN 0-553-14764-1). Both served in Coastal Forces. Scott uses a confusing mix of capitalised and non-capitalised forms - but one could conclude that when he was talking about a class of vessel he capitalised and when he did not, he was using the term generically. In Dicken's book, you find the introduction (written by the director of the Coastal Forces Heritage Trust) saying "In 1939 the Motor Gunboats and Motor Torpedo Boats available for.....", whilst the author does not capitalise motor torpedo boat, but the indexer (publisher?) does. Analysing both works, however, presumes that the English language capability of each author matched their other abilities. Looking at Mediterranean MTBs at War (Reynolds and Cooper), you find: "Until this time the Admiralty had retained the First World War name of ′Coastal Motor Boat′ for these craft, but in January 1936 they announced that they were to be designated ′Motor Torpedo Boats′." Thereafter this book uses the abbreviation "MTB" or just the word "boat".
Looking at Gatoclass's comment - a partial answer is to consider aircraft: one writes "fighter aircraft" or "bomber", but also "Spitfire" or "Lancaster". "Spitfire" includes variants of this aircraft that were very different, but they still had the same name. Is there a tendency for Wikipedia editors to be over-keen on consistency - when in reality the world is not like that? I am not advocating anything as irritating as T. E. Lawrence's delight in upsetting the editor of Seven Pillars of Wisdom who complained about different Anglicisations of the same Arabic place names (because that really is confusing) - but some flexibility should be acceptable – especially if that is what is found in sources. As a firm principle, I think we should consider the encyclopedia user who is referring to Wikipedia to help make sense of a book, newspaper article, or whatever. Rigid consistency in Wikipedia may actually make that encyclopedia usage less easy if the non-Wikipedia world has no consistency.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, with the caveat that I haven't taken a thorough look at this yet, it seems to me that this capitalization is introducing quite a bit of confusion. For the Motor Torpedo Boat article, for example, the phrase is capitalized per the (apparent) RN usage, but the article itself covers MTBs or their equivalents for several navies, not just the RN. So that suggests to me that for that article at least, the phrase should be decapitalized. And then, we have Motor Launch, for the RN type only, but then motor launch as a redirect to Launch (boat). So that too strikes me as confusing - it would probably make more sense to have Motor Launch (Royal Navy) (large or small "L") to properly disambiguate the term. But certainly I think we should be avoiding capitalization wherever possible, because it's consistent not only with wider wikipedia practice, but also as I pointed out earlier, with other type names of naval vessels. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "redesignated" that ThougtIdRetired found makes a lot more sense than the "redesigned" at the Canadian site, which is probably just an error. I don't doubt that the RN used capitalized designations. But that's not making them proper names, in the eyes of our MOS, unless general sources agree and employ that interpretation, which they mostly don't. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion overall, there appears to be some "confusion" as to the distinction between a class and a type. As Gatoclass points out, we don't capitalise ship types such as destroyer, so why should we start now. Type 23 frigate refers to the class but we might rewrite this as the Type 23 class of frigate. Fairmile A motor launch might be rewritten as Fairmile A class of motor launch. A class are built to a common design. The article on the MTB deals with more than one design, as does "high speed launch" and "motor launch". They are articles on a type. Types of vessels (particularly these) would not be considered a "proper name", a priori because they are descriptive of their role or purpose. The example of aircraft is a bit of a redherring. Firstly, the names "Spitfire" and "Lancaster" are not descriptive of what they are and secondly, while there are several variants of each, they are built to the same "basic" design - not unlike a sub-class. If we are to capitalise any of the matters being discussed, then we must satisfy the criteria of the guidelines (MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS). I am not seeing evidence being proffered that convincingly meets the criteria. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for now a downcasing RM on Motor Torpedo Boat would let us coalesce on these ideas. The Motor Launch case is more complicated, as there are two articles already. The High-speed launch is already lowercase, where I created it. There are other over-capped classes, but I haven't studied them enough yet to make a proposal that I'd be confident in. So let's start with this one, and separately find a better way to disambiguate the motor launches. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, doing RM now: Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat#Requested move 12 January 2020. Comments welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LCAC

This is another one I can't figure out. As Andy points out we have an article Landing Craft Air Cushion (with missing comma); I find we also have Air cushioned landing craft. Purportedly, the former is a specific type of the latter. From looking at the articles and their sources, however, that's not so clear. Many sources mix the terms around, often in lowercase, and use the acronym whether or not it's the current specific product. If we really are wanting to distinguish the specific one made by Textron Marine and Land Systems, couldn't the article title be more precise, rather than just looking like a case variation? Or if that's really the only LCAC, shouldn't the articles be merged? And what about the SSC/LCAC-100? Which article should its discussion be part of? This needs more looking into. Opinions and ideas are welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I got copies of Dog Boats at War: Royal Navy D Class MTBs and MGBs, 1939–1945 and Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946, and don't find much that helps clarify why one would capitalize these boat types. The former caps "Dog Boats" throughout, indicating a propensity to cap subjects of interest, but seldom mentions any of the boat names or classes in question, preferring to stick to initialisms like MTB and MGB without ever even defining them – but they do have a table of acronyms in which they cap everything, so that doesn't help. Otherwise, no use of "motor gun boat" or "motor torpedo boat", capped or not, but several "motor launch", lowercase, in sentences including "Fairmile 'B' motor launch". In the Conway's, it's clearly lowercase: "The classifications MTB (motor torpedo-boats), MGB (motor gunboats), and MA/SB (motor anti-submarine boats) eventually merged into one, referred to as MTB." Seems to pretty clearly contradict some of the proper-name claims. Other source observations are welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth restating my observation on sources (above) "...presumes that the English language capability of each author matched their other abilities." If a professional writer or a historian of this part of naval warfare is using/not using capitalisation I think this has more relevance than a work that relies more on the technical/historical knowledge of the writer. So, in short, you need a judgement on the degree of authority of the source.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So true. Which is why I keep asking for what sources support the caps. You have some? Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Coastal Forces Heritage Trust: caps throughout.
Mediterranean MTBs at War (Reynolds and Cooper): caps, then just "boat"
The London Gazette (WW2 years searched only): inconsistent on "High Speed Launch"/"high speed launch" and "Motor Torpedo Boat"/"motor torpedo boat" (in that both appear)
More inconsistency in Peter Scott's book the Battle of the Narrow Seas
[8] The Times newspaper: caps
Donald, William. Stand by for Action (memoirs of a regular Royal Navy Commander who was in action throughout WW2) caps when describing the class of British Navy boat, no caps when explaining what an E-boat is (so talking generically)
Probably could keep going like this.....ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can keep going then.
In your first link, "the Motor Torpedo Boats (MTBs), Motor Gun Boats (MGBs) and Motor Launches (MLs) could be found..." (mostly capping for defining acronyms). But also "...very heavily guarded by Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, armed Trawlers, E boats and Raumboote, Motor Minesweeping and Patrol Boats (R boats)..." and "These Brave class were equipped to operate as either Motor Gunboats or Motor Torpedo Boats...". With all this capping, it's hard to see any consistent pattern of caps relating to special classes of boat.
In your second link, I can see "first lieutenant of a Motor Torpedo Boat", before the paywall grays it out; is there more there?
In Mediterranean MTBs at War: Short MTB Flotilla Operations, 1939-1945, I can't see anything online. Do they just use the caps in the context of defining the acronyms?
What's your opinion on the relative quality of the various sources? Are you thinking there's anything approaching consistent capitalization in certain uses of the terms? Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal Forces Heritage Trust - agreed, there is a lot of capitalisation generally
London Gazette - the feature here is inconsistency, but (without doing a precise count) I would guess it is 25% caps for Motor Torpedo Boat/motor torpedo boat and 50% caps for High Speed Launch/high speed launch.
Mediterranean MTBs - there is just an initial use of capitalised Motor Torpedo Boat and then the book uses "boat" or "MTB" throughout, without the long form.
In terms of quality, Mediterranean MTBs appears to be a definitive well-researched book written by 2 authors who served on these boats in WW2 in the Med. The memoirs "Stand by for Action" is well written, both for readability and use of English, but I guess memoirs are always a step back from being a WP:RS versus a more independent source. The Times speaks for itself on quality, but I have not researched other uses of the term, just looked up someone with an obituary who I knew served in MTBs (could look up Peter Scott, but out of time now). Peter Scott served in MTBs and had a relatively senior position in Coastal Forces by the end of WW2 and has written a good amount of books on other subjects - so probably OK on use of English.
Trying to take an independent, scientific view of sources, and going against my instincts to use capitalisation to increase clarity for the reader, it does appear more common to see uncapitalised "motor torpedo boat". Some of this occurs when the writer is differentiating between generic boats of this type and the RN boats (as mentioned for Donald, immediately above), but most appears to be just the style of the writer. Overall uncapitalised usage appears to be more common, but caps are definitely used by some.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Dog Boats at War book does use the terms in question, in the Introduction (page IX) at least: "...the story of the Fairmile 'D' class motor torpedo boats and motor gunboats, often known as 'Dog Boats'." So, lowercase except for "Dog Boats". Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy sources

I kind of took it on faith that the RN capped these things until I heard from Shem at the MTB requested move. Wondering, I did a search of their site, and another. Quite a few lowercase as in "motor torpedo boat MTB 102" and "Fairmile D motor torpedo boat" and "a motor gun boat being built". Some capped, too, mostly just in the context of defining the acronym. So, not consistent, like other non-RN sources, but I see no reason to conclude that the RN sees these as proper names of classes. Is there anything that says they do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She?

I thought I saw an RfC on the gendered naming of ships recently; in my recollection, there was a consensus to do away with the female pronouns, but I don't know at what stage I saw that RfC, or how it was implemented. What I just saw in the MOS is basically "be consistent". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS archive 217 for the RFC (warning, long and tortuous). The result was to leave the MOS alone allowing both "it" and "she", but requiring consistency in any one article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Martin of Sheffield. I should have just asked you first, over cocktails. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a real pint of real ale! (ie not those transatlantic 16 oz measures;-) ) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC that needs attention

Hello all, I have an article at FAC that hasn't had many reviews and may be archived soon as a result. If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/archive1 and see what needs fixing, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&oldid=936363962"