This article 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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Some reason why this ship is being referred to in feminine pronouns?
It is not encyclopaedic, or just plainly appropriate, to refer to an object using the feminine pronouns "she" or "her". I move that this be changed to the correct, non-personal pronouns "it" and "its". Alialiac (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason: it is an accepted and very common usage in English - so, indeed, is "it" but this is already written in "she" style. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Pronouns - consensus is that we don't change from "she", etc, to "it" where this is the existing style, and vice versa. If you think that's wrong, it would probably be wise for you to start a campaign there to get agreement to change thousands of articles, rather than proposing to change them one by one. Thank you and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's another thought that I hope might help: if you have a look at this, it's a list of ship articles which have been "Featured Articles", that is, Wikipedia thinks they are good. I think if you look at a random sample of those - or even all of them - you'll find plenty of use of "she". Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
She and ships is always an interesting language and gender issue. However I started this article with she because it is common and accepted language for describing ships and I'd very much like it to stay that way.Letterofmarque (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - which is what I think is the consensus - don't change from the started style; keep it consistent within the article. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Both of you, and other interested editors, might want to have a look at the brief discussion of this topic here. (edited later) I would respectfully suggest that that's a better forum for discussing this, since it's a very much more general issue than just this one vessel. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)