Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)

This is the talk page for discussing Naming conventions (ships) and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:SHIPNAME

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 120 days

Ships Project‑class

	This 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 articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q:US Navy ships prior to commissioning should be prefixed PCU and not USS!

A:While this would be militarily correct, WP:NC-SHIP requires using USS to designate the ship as belonging to the United States. Separating ships by nationality is important for Wikipedia to avoid confusion with other Navies of the world.

Q:US Navy ship names are supposed to be written in ALL CAPS!

A:For purposes of adhering to the WP:MOS we use USS Lower Case and not USS UPPER CASE.

QENS

Is "QENS" an accepted ship prefix for ships of the Qatari Emiri Navy? It's not listed in the Ship prefix article, but is used in the titles of several QEN ship articles, including QENS Al Fulk (L141) and QENS Al Zubarah (F101). Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is according to Jane's Fighting Ships 2015–2016 (p. 662).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article with the ship's name

I saw the thread at the top about the use of definite articles, but gained no clarity from it at all and I found little in the conventions guideline that clarified matters either. What is the general advice on whether to use a definite article or not, given that in BrEng is is more common to use "the" in good English than to avoid it. Is there a standing consensus or guideline on whether to use or avoid, or is it left more open than that? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a consensus and that's why the naming convention has adopted the "not needed, but not technically wrong either" approach. Sometimes it may sound okay ("It's the Enterprise"), but in most cases it feels unnecessary and even excessive in a Wikipedia article. Personally I only use it if there are words between the article and the ship's name (e.g. "...unlike the diesel-electric icebreaker Viktor Chernomyrdin..." or "...unlike Viktor Chernomyrdin..." but not "..unlike the Viktor Chernomyrdin.."). Tupsumato (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less it - use it if you want, or don't. FWIW, I follow the same practice Tupsumato describes. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - thank you both. That seems a sensible path to follow, so I'll follow suit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other minor point to make: when I refer to a ship class, I'd use the definite article, so for example, "...the Sachsen class" since in this case, "class" is the noun and the ship name is just an adjective. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation when only one ship of a given name has an article

I've been editing Zeewijk (1725) - this is the only article on a ship, or anything else, called Zeewijk, and Zeewijk (and Zeewyk) redirect there. Betterkeks moved the page from Zeewijk a few years ago, citing this guideline.

As far as I can see, this guideline only suggests use of a year when other ships by that name actually have articles, not preemptively just because other ships of that name existed?

Any comments, or objections to me moving this back to Zeewijk? TSP (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSP I have no objection, just a request. Please make it work in harmony with MOS:NAT (for ships, which is this context), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) – and in particular Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship – in combination with template:ship used to do that, without readers ending up getting confused by ending up on a non-ship page that happens to get added before the ship page. Betterkeks (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Betterkeks. Looking through those, I don't think MOS:NAT has any bearing - that's about italicisation in article text, it tells you not to italicise disambiguation terms if they are present, but doesn't bear on whether they are present in text, let alone in article titles.

You can still, if you like, use Zeewijk (1725) to link to articles via a redirect, to make doubly sure they go to the right place; but I don't think that wish for links to be unambiguous overrides Wikipedia's general policies on article titles being concise, natural and recognisable.

I am a bit curious about that line in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) - WP:REDLINK says In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created. Is it really our expectation that every ship should eventually have an article?

But in any case, you can always link to a more precise term that is then redirected to the actual page; that doesn't conflict with the general Wikipedia principle of putting the page itself at the most natural and concise title, and only using disambiguations when there is an actual clash. TSP (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re red links: my approach is to make my own assessment of "reasonable expectation", albeit cursory, before linking or not-linking; existence ≠ notability, per WP:GNG. -Davidships (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More guidance for naming conventions for class articles

Presently the section about ship classes seems to give guidance about how to refer to different ship classes. Could we discuss and, if we agree on something, add more guidance how to choose title for articles about ship classes that may be referred to with more than one name and/or which do not have a well-established class name?

For example, Soviet/Russian ship classes may be referred to by their project number and various PLAN ship classes referred to by "type". Some may also have a Russian or Chinese class name (often but not always after the lead ship), some may have a western (NATO etc.) class/reporting name, some may have both, some may have neither. Sometimes names are used by few sources but not well-established and widely-adopted in WP:RS.

I'd also like to include a line about ship classes with no well-established and widely-adopted class name or any other way to refer to them. While the convention is to refer to the class by the lead ship, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should be the one to coin class names. In the past, enthusiastic editors had a tendency to do this for cruise ships and ferries...

The reason why I'm bringing this up is that I wasn't sure which would be the correct convention to follow with Project 97 icebreakers; see merge and move discussions on the talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of the above proposals. The wording could be along the lines of

A ship class may be named for a member of the class (usually the first or lead ship) or the class may be named for an attribute common to all of the ships of the class. They can also be referred to by their project name and/or type designation. When the class is named for a member of the class, the class name is italicized. When the class is named for a common theme, attribute, project number of type, the class name is not italicized:

And then examples of Type and Project added to the list. Llammakey (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the proposed text in general, I was specifically looking for guidance how to select the article title: not how ship classes are named in general, but how they should be named in Wikipedia. Should the English-language Wikipedia give priority to original Soviet/Russian/Chinese "Project" or "Type" number and/or class name over one "given" by NATO or western literary sources, or the other way around? Should there be different convention for naval vessels and civilian ships? Old and new ships (e.g. there's well-established class name for this but not for this)? How is it done with other types of (military) equipment (could someone ask WP:MILHIST)? What do we do with ships that do not have established class name but that are sometimes given one by ship enthusiasts? Tupsumato (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more "she" for ships, please.

That's not proper grammar. How come people have such a hard time convincing others to use the correct pronouns for trans people, but ships automatically get "she"? Thus, I want to start a discussion about defaulting to "it", as a ship is an object, not a woman. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we've already had multiple discussions on the issue and no clear consensus has arisen to use "it" rather than "she"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We"? Who's "we"? If it's only people in WikiProject Military (or Ships or whatever), then of course that's gonna be the result. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time this issue was discussed in WP:MOS was in March 2022; see list of archived discussions since 2004. Personally I wouldn't mind having this discussion again but I doubt there would be clear consensus this time either. Tupsumato (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU "She" actually is proper grammar for a ship in English, it's one of the few things in the language that operates that way. Either form is perfectly fine grammar, actually, and that's independent of the fact that we should of course respect the pronouns of trans individuals. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean transoceanic ships? E Eng 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly fine grammar, though that's a separate question from whether it's pretentious and stupid, which it is. See WP:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water. E Eng 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]