Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)

Reversion by BilCat

Having been reverted by BilCat with the edit summary "undiscussed changes which removed key info,, forced project sidebars down", I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. What "key info" do you believe to have been removed from the page? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The note that stated, "For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see {{Infobox ship begin}}." Such changes really need to be discussed beforehand, where you would explain why it isn't needed there, and get a consensus to remove it. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Firstly, changes to the layout of a page, including removing a hatnote, do not need to be discussed beforehand; WP:BRD applies. Secondly, that hatnote was not removed. It was merely reformatted such that it would appear as a hatnote on mobile. So why the reversion? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bilcat. You want to change something on that page, including adding another template, you discuss it first. Llammakey (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I must be missing something. As far as I can tell, all the IP did was replace this:

:For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see {{tlx|Infobox ship begin}}.

With this:

{{for2|instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles|{{tlx|Infobox ship begin}}}}

The result is exactly the same. Can someone clarify what the objection to using the template is? Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

He also added the template naming conventions, pushing the Ships template further down the article. That is what I am objecting to. If the IP wants to add that template, then whether the Ships template should be kept or modified and so on should be discussed. Otherwise there will be a wall of templates along the side of the article. Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If one looks through ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia naming conventions some of those pages have {{naming conventions}}, some don't. I think that if that template is to be kept, it should be placed below the side bar. Were it up to me I would not include {{naming conventions}}.

As for the other change, there is indeed a difference though it is for browsers and search engines and the like and not necessarily for readers. Here is the output of the {{for2}} template:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000001C-QINU`"'<div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see [[:<code>&#123;&#123;[[Template:Infobox ship begin|Infobox ship begin]]&#125;&#125;</code>]].</div>

compared to the original:

:For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see <code>&#123;&#123;[[Template:Infobox ship begin|Infobox ship begin]]&#125;&#125;</code>.

This was a proper and justified change that should be retained. If there are no objections, I shall restore this portion of IP editor's change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Trappist's suggestion about the tlx template. Llammakey (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: With respect to your concern that many pages in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions do not have the sidebar, that is no surprise as about a third of them are not included in the template. Amongst those that are in the template, there's only a few without the sidebar apart from those in the language/country-specific section for some reason.

On your proposal that {{naming conventions}} be excluded, that would seem to defeat sidebars' purpose of "facilitat[ing] navigation". And why would the WikiProject sidebar take preference when this is a naming convention page, not a WikiProject page?

You're right about the effect of {{for2}}. The other example of its use that is more apparent to the average user is it affects the appearance of the hatnote on mobile. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

When I wrote that some pages in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia naming conventions have the template and some don't, that was merely an observation. I am not at all concerned that some of those pages don't have the template.

On the topic of the sidebar, I have not made any proposals, I have only expressed an opinion. Please do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken. At the top of the project page, {{Subcat guideline}} links to the category page where all naming convention pages are listed. That is sufficient to facilitate navigation. I see the sidebar as redundant.

If the sidebar is to be retained, I think it should take the inferior position because when you are here on a matter pertaining to a ship article, then you are treating this page as a WP:SHIPS page so navigation to other WP:SHIPS pages should be offered first. Of course, one could say that when you are here on a matter of naming conventions, the naming conventions sidebar should be offered first. There is no getting round that; one sidebar must come first. I choose the ships sidebar.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

He also added the template naming conventions, pushing the Ships template further down the article. That is what I am objecting to. If the IP wants to add that template, then whether the Ships template should be kept or modified and so on should be discussed.
— User:Llammakey 12:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There should be no doubt that the naming conventions sidebar should appear on a naming convention. Consistency is necessary so as to "facilitate navigation". And if preference is to be given to one sidebar over the other, {{naming conventions}} is the natural choice as this article is not an advice page and does not belong to a WikiProject.

As you are objecting to my edit, do you have an alternative proposal? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You want to change something on that page, including adding another template, you discuss it first.
— User:Llammakey 10:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You have provided no reason that WP:BRD does not reply. In fact, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement to WP:BOLD which is explicit in saying that it applies to the editing of policies and guidelines, albeit recognizing that the phrase "but please be careful" is of particular import in such cases. WP:PGCHANGE also makes clear that while discussions should generally precede "substantive changes" to a policy or guideline, "Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. [emphasis added]" Given that we are discussing the changing of a hatnote's semantic formatting and the addition of an navigational template, that clearly qualifies.

How can you attempt to order without qualification that "You want to change something on that page, including adding another template, you discuss it first"? (I should note that I do not intend the question to be rhetorical.) "[C]laim[ing], whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added" would seem to be an example of "ownership behaviour", especially when you have a history of making reversions on this page with the sole rationale of the edit having "no consensus". 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering me with an ip address. I'm just going to assume bad faith on your part. Have a nice day. Llammakey (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: You have made an accusation against me. The least you can do is back it up as I am assuming that you were not attempting to be intentionally deceitful. What "key info" was removed? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I answered your question already. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Could you direct me to where the question was answered, if you did? I still do not know what "key info" was removed. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Top of this post, which your IP address has already responded to. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Are you referring to "The note that stated, 'For instructions on how to make ship names appear in italics in article titles, see {{Infobox ship begin}}.'"? Because we've already established that that was not removed, have we not? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so why are you asking a question to which you already know the answer? - BilCat (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: So if that wasn't the reason why you reverted, then what was? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It was one of 2 reasons I reverted. And please stop pinging me - I'm watching the page. - BilCat (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated 'useful' templates removed

From #Using_ship_class_names_in_articles, I have removed templates mentioned 'useful' {{sclass}}}, {{sclass2}}. The produce non-hyphened class, type links while these should be hyphened (adjective). They have been deprecated for years, and now have been removed from article space. {{sclass-}} (t/l) and {{sclass2-}} are their promoted replacements. - DePiep (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ship class articles

The first sentence in the "Ship class articles" section says "Articles about a ship class should be named (Lead ship name)-class (type)". But this is apparently not always true, as it says later on that a class is sometimes not named after the lead ship. This should be easy to fix and I'll do so.

Then we have this: "Note the separation of submarine as a separate link..." But this contradicts MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Is that what we want?

And I see no advice as to naming a class when there are multiple possible names, like Hotel-class submarine (the NATO reporting name) vs Project 658 (the Soviet Navy name). Maybe this isn't necessary and we just follow WP:COMMONNAME.

Also why do we have two overlapping sections on ship class names, "Naming articles about ship classes" and "Ship class articles"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

On your second point, my understanding is that two links next to each other are fine, but more than that runs afoul of SEAOFBLUE. FWIW, I've routinely used these templates and have never once had a problem at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ships with initials in their name

How to name the W.J. Pirrie or W. J. Pirrie? -Broichmore (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In case of commercial ships, I usually check classification society etc. databases. All cases I have encountered have been with spaces between initials (in my mind, W. J. would be short for "Willie Jillie" whereas I'd interpret W.J. as "WillieJillie"). Tupsumato (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In principle I agree that a space is better for initials of people (WP article names are almost always like that, unless it is a stage-name). Sources may vary though according to the house-style adopted and over time (and some omit the periods altogether) - that includes classification societies. Strictly speaking it is the national registration records, where published, that show the correct form - and certainly not what is actually painted on the ship! Davidships (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS:INITIALS says to use spaces for names of people if that's any help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

There is currently a debate on Talk:Capture of the Anne on whether "the" should be permitted in the title of the article. IMO, I believe that this should be permitted, however the editor who wishes to push this issue, appears to be using the naming convention below to justify the proposed page move (rename to Capture of Anne).

Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:

HMS Victory was ... not The HMS Victory was ...

I may be wrong amd happy to admit if wrong, however I believe the the ship article name should be able use "The" where is "Capture of the XXXX" et, if no other name could be agreed upon. The articles Sinking of the RMS Titanic,Passengers of the RMS Titanic, Wreck of the RMS Titanic, Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Petrel have also be identified by the editor as having to renamed to remove "The" due to conflict with Ship naming convention. I also raise that alot of article for battles are titled "Battle of the XXXX". I would like to facilitate this so we can all move forward. My suggested change is as follows:

Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section:

HMS Victory was ... not The HMS Victory was ...

The use of "the" may be used in the context of Capture of the Anne, Sinking of the RMS Titanic ....which is however acceptable

Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

oppose - bad grammar. We do not call the company Nike, "the Nike" nor "the Wal-Mart" unless used as an adjective, such as "the Nike shoes" or "the Wal-Mart store". In the case you are proposing, "Capture of the Anne ship" would be a better title, or even better, "capture of the ship Anne", where Anne becomes noun and ship is used as the descriptor. Llammakey (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Llammakey: The RM mentioned is currently taking place at Talk:Capture of the Anne#Requested move 28 November 2018. FYI - wolf 12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Llammakey: - Thank you. In some instances we must be able to permit "the" in front of a ships name in an article's name i.e. "Wreck of the RMS Titanic". I would not support an article's name starting with "The Anne". If "Capture of the Anne" is accepted by the community, we should be able to deal with it in the naming convention. Do you have any suggestions that would appease your concerns? I would like us as a community to come to some solution to deal with this matter or use of "the" in descriptive articles names. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how would "Capture of the Anne ship" be justifiable based on English grammar? I'm seeing this all the time in the news (e.g. "The CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent (left) conducts seismic surveys following the USCGC Healy icebreaker.") and it just feels... wrong? It's not like we're saying "According to Trump president..." either. However, if you swap the name and descriptor around, then it feels natural. I could live with "the icebreaker Healy". Tupsumato (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oh? What's this...? Forum shopping? (Yes, I'm the "other editor"). I'm still not sure why you accused me wanting to change the names of articles about "battles", but I see you brought it up here and well. Just to be clear, this is about ships. The RM is about a ship's name. The naming guideline I cited, (the one you are desperately trying to change all of a sudden), is about ships; "Naming conventions (ships)". I never mentioned "battles" once. So hopefully we can put that to rest now. I see you brought your little list of Titanic articles again. I have a list;

1. Capture of HMS Boxer
2. Capture of HMS Frolic
3. Capture of HMS Epervier
4. Capture of HMS Penguin
5. Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant
6. Capture of HMS Dominica
7. Capture of HMS Macedonian
8. Capture of HMS Savage
9. Capture of HMS Nautilus
10. Capture of HMS Guerriere
11. Sinking of HMS Peacock
12. Sinking of HMS Avon
13. Sinking of HMS Reindeer
14. Sinking of HMS York
15. Sinking of HMS Java
16. Sinking of HMS E3
17. Sinking of HMS Niger
18. Sinking of HMS Penelope
19. Sinking of HMS Ark Royal
20. The sinking of HMS Oxley

Not one of them has the definite article "the" before the prefix HMS, like the guideline says. Same goes for ships names, either without a prefix, or if the prefix is not being used. I'm not sure why you are so vehemently opposed to the RM, that you're now trying to rewrite a guideline, but its unnecessary. The guideline is supported by established practice. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time editing ship articles knows that on numerous articles, numerous editors have removed the definite article "the" when preceding a ship's name, anywhere in the ships's article. At least, that's been my experience over the years. - wolf 12:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - No, I am attempting to have the matter resolved holistically here, if possible, seeing as you have invoked the naming convention as the issue. I know calling "The Her Majesty's Ship" is incorrect terminology. What I am trying to do is trying to form an overall consensus within the naming convention that would permit the use of "the" before a ship name, only in specific examples i.e. "Passengers of the RMS Titanic", otherwise as a community we are likely to be discussing this again and again. The naming convention also needs to be updated that within the article that "the Anne" is not accepted as the convention only specifically relates to the lead. Please try to keep this civil and I am sure that we can come to more of a consensus. Remember this is not personal. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

When I previously noted what clearly appearred to me as canvassing, and now forum shopping, it wasn't personal, I was just calling it as I saw it. That said, there is no need to change this guideline. There hasn't been any ongoing or widespread problems related to it. I used it to support an RM, an RM that you oppose, and before that RM discussion is even near conclusion, you're suddenly here trying to get the guideline changed to support your position there. That, as they say, is just not cricket. - wolf 10:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - Unfortunately we do have issues as an editor is moving articles with "the" in the name of the article. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes... and those moves are proper as they are supported by guidelines. Some people don't like it and seem to be getting all panicky about it, but that editor hasn't done anything wrong. - wolf 11:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, do not use "the" before "HMS" or its variants, as "the Her Majesty's ship" is not correct.

It is common to use "the" before names of vessels (and "HMS " is not part of the name) and apparently there is one UK style guide to that effect, as was pointed out to me on Wikipedia not long ago (I no longer remember where and I'm not going to go digging for it). Ships are not people and it is routine to see uses such as "the Titanic" or "the Queen Mary".

Finally, we suffer from too much formalism. There is no need to entitle an article as "Sinking of the RMS Titanic — "Sinking of the Titanic" is perfectly adequate. Nor do we need to use prefixes such as "HMS" or "USS" or "SS" every time we mention a vessel's name. Just as we don't need to link repeated references to a ship, we do not need to restate the prefix on uses after the first one.

Kablammo (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Answering following comment: it is not grammatically incorrect to use the definite article with a proper noun. "The Waldorf". "The White House". "The QE2"/ The Queen Elizabeth 2. The Titanic. Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose this proposed change to the naming standard for ships. Ship names are proper nouns and as such it is grammaticly incorrect to use the definite article before one. Other style guides notwithstanding, I believe we have this right here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral I oppose the current proposal because it is not succinct enough, but I agree with the need to loosen the current guidelines. The definite article is commonly used before a ship's name. Whether that is grammatically wrong or not depends entirely on the context and it is incorrect to stick to the rigid line that there should not be an article before a name. The speaker, in context, could easily be referring to the ship but omitting words that are assumed to be there and which therefore affect the structure of the remaining sentence. Hence "The sinking of the ship that was called Rainbow Warrior" becomes "The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior", and that is perfectly correct. Another way to approach this is to look at common usage. "The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior" is more commonly used in reliable sources than "The sinking of Rainbow Warrior". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Partial support; partial oppose, with following alternate proposal:

Do not use definite article before "HMS" or similar (e.g., HMAS; HMNZS);

The definite article may be used before other ship prefixes such as SS or MV, and before the name of the vessel without a prefix.

Reason: We should not use the definite article before a prefix which, if spelled out with the name, would be ungrammatical ("the Her Majesty's ship x") but it may be used with another prefix ("the Steam Ship y"), or with the actual name (and the prefix is not part of a ship's name). Kablammo (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

oppose - once again, a ship's name is a noun, much like a company name. They should be treated the same in professional language. Llammakey (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"I'd like to visit Empire State Building sometime, but couldn't afford to stay at Waldorf-Astoria." Kablammo (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, Empire State Building has "building" in its name, but I had to click on the link to see what Waldorf-Astoria was. I assumed it was a town. However, if you had put "the hotel Waldorf-Astoria", that would have proved your point better. The Empire State Building has the descriptor in its name. Empire State is the adjective in that case, and therefore place a "the" before it would be completely acceptable. However, I see no reason to put a "the" in front of Waldorf-Astoria. In my opinion it sounds better, more professional. Like Starbucks or Nike or Wal-Mart or Canada or United Arab Emirates (which by the way, should have a the in front of it by your rules all the time, the same as United States).Llammakey (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Llammakey, you are trying to impose consistency where it does not exist in the world outside Wikipedia. I don't see where such a grammatical rule exists. As in my proposal, we should leave use of the definite article optional (except the HMS case, where it should not be used). Kablammo (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What about The Second Snark and other such cases? Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support intent but No change needed, just thoughtful application: There's a lot of arguing here about English grammar as if it is black and white. While it may indeed be true that the the norm is for "the" not to be used before proper nouns, there are a considerable number of exceptions across many fields, sometimes with no apparent reason (eg climb Annapurna but the Eiger), and there is no reason for artificial rigidity in relation to ships - especially where it is a field in which a wide range of writers, scholarly as well as popular, use "the" before ships actual names at least sometimes (I say "actual names" because the question of use before prefixes is different, and ought not to be so controversial). That said, WP is perfectly entitled to establish preferences, but there should be flexibility to allow valid alternatives - and that is exactly what it already does - if the quote from the current convention at the head of this discussion had continued just one line further, we would have got to:

  Do not use the definite article ("the") before a prefix or when introducing a ship for the first time; e.g., at the beginning of the lead section (example)

  Generally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong (example) [emphasis added]

  As I wrote on Talk:Capture of the Anne, "I think that this is a textbook example of why WP:SHIPNAME wisely has "Generally,....." and "[Capture of Anne] is full of ambiguity without the article and, to me, just sounds strange. I support the omission of the article as the default case, but even an italicised Anne doesn't really quite get there." Davidships (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Davidships: - Thank you for pointing that out. Do you believe that we could provide some examples of where "the" is potentially able to be used, as examples really help explain what a statement is intending. Just like pictures trying to explain a statement, sometimes this is the trigger needed for full understanding? We don't have examples for "Passengers of the Titanic" where "the" is used beforehand and also for the preferred none use of "the Anne" within the article itself? Maybe with a slight tinker of the guideline, it might provide better understanding between editors. Sometime not being said can lead to bigger issues, as currently being played out. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hi @Newm30:, I'd thought I'd respond to you personally since you seem to be one of those users who tries to get people banned if you do not like how the discussion is going. Perfectly good places to use a definite article before a ship name is where the ship name is the descriptor, such as "the Unicorn prisoners", or "the Titanic shipwreck". Those would be good places to use a definite article before a ship name. Like talking about the "the Nike shoes I purchased" or "the Starbucks coffee I tasted". Hence the "generally". I'm not sure what grade of elementary school you made it through, but that is how grammar works. You have yourself a nice day. Llammakey (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If others haven't made good suggestions by Monday (when I'm back from a weekend away), I'll try to do that. Davidships (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• For info. Llamakey has moved several articles on ship sinkings by removing "the" from the title whilst this discussion is ongoing and a consensus is being formed. I've asked nicely that they be returned to their original titles but have been refused. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Can we have an administrator, please review response to Mjroots on User_talk:Llammakey#Page_moves. The response provided is inappropriate and shows a lack of respect for admin. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I took ten minutes in my personal library and pulled eleven books from a variety of maritime authors in the Canada, the US, and the UK. In that same 10 minutes I found that 10 of the 11 use “the [ship name]”, in other words, they place the definite article before the name of the ship.

In no particular order, they are:

• I. C. B. Dear (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea (2d ed. 2005);
• Richard Woodman, The History of the Ship (2002);
• R. Gardiner (ed.), The Golden Age of Shipping (1994);
• John Townsend Gibbons, Palaces that Went to Sea (1990);
• Walter Lord, The Night Lives On (1986);
• Robert Wall, Ocean Liners (1997);
• Alan Villiers, Men, Ships, and the Sea (1962);
• William H. Miller, Famous Ocean Liners (1987);
• Ewan Corlett, The Revolution in Merchant Shipping 1950-1980 (National Maritime Museum, 1981);
• Frank Braynard, By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them, The Life and Ships of William Francis Gibbs (1968).

The one outlier of the eleven I looked at is W.A. Baker and Tre Tryckare, The Engine Powered Vessel (1965), which in my short review appears not to use the definite article.

Noted maritime authors, the National Maritime Museum, maritime publishers, the Smithsonian, the National Geographic Society, the New York Times, and the BBC all use the definite article before ship names.

It is safe to say they know something about grammar.

Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the books you mentioned happen to be encyclopaedias? Because that's what this project is. Different standards, different guidelines. Unlike those books, where mistakes such as adding the definite article "the" before a shipname can't be corrected, WP can, and is, updated with corrections all the time. WP is not paper, your OSE argument has no merit, and this isn't the preference of a single author or editor, but a guideline, created, vetted and implemented by a consensus of this community. A guideline that is also supported by the numerous editors that remove the word "the" from before ship names, from numerous articles, going back for some time now, making it basically a standard practice. Not sure why a handful of editors are suddenly jumping all over this, apparently bringing personal grudges, using canvassing and forum shopping, threantening to abuse admin rights, etc., etc., etc.... all to have a simple and proper writing style changed. Strange times indeed... - wolf 05:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See below. Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Point of order, Thewolfchild. There has been no "threat to abuse admin rights". I was invited to misuse my administrative privileges, and declined to do so. I also made a polite request, which was also declined. If you have issues with the way I've conducted myself in this matter, you know where WP:ANI is. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - I believe he is referring to me, for opposing the moving of the article "Capture of the Anne" to "Capture of Anne". I then crossed the line apparently trying to seek experts opinion by pinging them and then trying to arrange a resolution by strengthening the guideline. I don't know what personal grudges I am alleged to have towards them, as I would be happy to work with them in the future, regardless of differing opinions. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at your contributions, Newm30, and see nothing that concerns me. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Answering a question posed above, and expanding on my previous list of ships:

I have started a user page for my library, and populated it with volumes by 20 additional authors who use the construct "the [ship name]". That list can be found at User:Kablammo/Library. Every one of these authors use that format. If you question their credentials, refer to the wikipedia pages for those with such pages, or google their names, or search Wikipedia for cites to their works. They are all authoritative, and include academics and popular historians. And together they have written hundreds of books on naval history.

And yes, some of these books are encyclopedias.

I cannot understand why it is so important to impose a solution to something that is not a problem. It is true that some writers do not use the definite article. Samuel Eliot Morison and Barrett Tillman appear to be examples, at least in some cases. (It is easier to prove the presence of a "the" before a ship name than its absence.) Some use both. But when individuals with the qualifications of Norman Polmar and Bernard Ireland, and publishers like the United States Naval Institute, Jane's, and the National Maritime Museum use that construct in their works, we should be able to tolerate it here.

Personally, I avoid use of "the". But others use it, and that usage is correct.

Haven't we all got better things to do that fight over this? Kablammo (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)