Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Fictional ships?

Is it recommended for fictional ships to follow the naming conventions in this article? If yes, how are we to resolve disputes where factions claim a ship is not a class and such? Jappalang (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We haven't thoroughly addressed this at WP:SHIPS, but I think following the naming conventions here would be wise. I don't understand your reference to a dispute; could you clarify? Maralia (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I initially came here for clarification due to a recent edit in the computer game article Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War, where the contributor named a ship GTD Hades while other ship designations (my previous contributions sourced from the older version) were non italicized. As I was typing out the first question, it occured to me what would happen if (let us say for a sci-fi novel article) due to a case of bad writing, the naming of a ship could be ambiguous between its name or a class; one side decides to claim the name used for a ship is a class (hence not needing italics) while another side rages on it is (hence must be italicized). Proof is difficult as the author might not have thought carefully nor published clarification on the ships involved. Note that in the case which popped into my head, the name is not explicitly tied to any ship and hence can be disputed as to whether it is a specific ship name and a class, or even if the side with the fictional ships has adopted the convention of naming the first ship in the class with the same name. Jappalang (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The way we style real life ships is to italicise the class if it is named after a specific ship, for example the Sentinel class cruisers take their name from HMS Sentinel (both names are italicised). However where the name is not taken from a specific ship, eg the Tribal class frigates are named after Tribes of the world, not a ship named HMS Tribal, then the class name is not italicised. So if you had a fictional ship, you could use the same method, e.g. the imperial star destroyer Executor is an Executor class super star destroyer. But the Earth Empire ship Venus is a Planet class star cruiser. GTD Hades is a Hades class xxx. It seems like it might solve your little dispute, if you italicise the names, they could equally refer to the ship as an individual ship, or as a class. If I've misunderstood what the dispute is, please feel free to clarify it a little more. Benea (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Benea's explanation is spot on, but I'll offer a summary to ensure nothing gets lost in the detail: the name of a ship is always italicized; the name of a ship's class is italicized only if if the class is named after a ship. Maralia (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both, I am going ahead to adopt the naming conventions for the FreeSpace articles. To further clarify, my concern of a dispute is imaginary (a worry for the future). Thank you Maralia for presenting a summarized case, as I think it can help me present my concern clearly. Since the name of a ship's class is italicized only if the class is named after a ship, what should we do if it is unknown or ambiguous if the class is named after a ship in fiction and two sides argue over it. For example, a novel might have a character exclaiming "The Callaway frigate is a danger to us all!" without explicitly stating anywhere it is a class nor the definite existence of a frigate named the Callaway. Without definitie articles/sourcebooks to prove otherwise, what would be the best approach to take to sooth both sides? Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
All you can do is go by what you have; if so very little is said about a ship in the main source, then it probably isn't a terribly important part of the plot and therefore won't make much of an appearance, if any, in the resulting article. If it needs to be there for some reason, a direct quotation would be a wiser route since you can avoid the dreaded WP:OR. Maralia (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<--I think you may have opened a can of worms, here. Flower class corvette already (to my mind) violates the convention; the lead ship was Gladiolus, not Flower. Don't you get conflict there? Or have I completely misread you? (It's been a long day...) Trekphiler (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have - 'italicise the class if it is named after a specific ship', and let me just emphasise the IF in that section. And please feel free to refer to that specific talkpage for further clarification. Benea (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dates in names

See arguments debated in section at the top of this page about the merits of either using dates or pennant numbers/hull codes for distinguishing articles about different navy ships re-using the same name. Is it better to use dates or naval identification codes in article names to distinguish between ships with the same name?

Examples would be HMS Barham (1914) vs. HMS Barham (04) and USS Missouri (1944) vs. USS Missouri (BB-63)

See also HMS Barham or USS Missouri for how a disambiguation page may appear with naming conventions, or Category:Queen Elizabeth class battleships and Category:Iowa class battleships for some examples of how the two name types appear in a category.

responses

My suggestion would be:

For ships which are in commission, or which have a sister-ship remaining in commission, use a pennant number or other designator where present.
For ships which are no longer in commission, and no sister ships remain in commission, use the launch year unless the pennant number is more widely known. (This condition will mainly apply navy-by-navy not ship-by-ship).
Hence: HMS Invincible (R05), but once Illustrious is decommissioned, HMS Invincible (1977)
HMS Hood (1918) not HMS Hood (51)
USS New Mexico (BB-40) not USS New Mexico (1917), because the use of numbers is more routine in US naval history.

Reagards, The Land (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Land's response seems very sensible to me since for ships out of commission, the year seems a straightforward way of disambiguating to a casual reader. If they are looking up information about a ship on Wikipedia it seems likely they are looking for fairly basic information and may not have information about pennant number to hand. A disambiguation page listing the possible ships by date of launch, however, would almost certainly let them find the one they want. Indeed, for historical ships, it's really the time they were about that is the critical factor differentiating them, rather pennant number (unless, as The Land points out, that pennant number happens to be particularly widely known, as is true in the USN). Since it would odd to name articles about ships currently in service by their date of launch, it also makes sense to identify them by their appropriate naval identification. While it's true that this is not the most self-consistent proposal imaginable, each breach of consistency (e.g. use of numbers for US ships) is more than adequately justified. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 12:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty sensible proposal as well. It would pretty effectively deal with any current ambiguity that may exist - although it does have the slight disadvantage of requiring articles to be moved at some future point... but I think that is not such a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. Martocticvs (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

United States lightships

Transferred discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships, per User:Brad101.

I think we've discussed this before. If so, can someone tell me what the result was? I'm looking at standardizing naming and elements of the various U.S. Lightvessel articles that we have. (See Category:Lightships) The difficulty is that lightships change name based on where they are stationed at, but the hull number ("LV58", "Lightvessel No. 58") remains the same. And we haven't been that standardized in how we've done article names up to this point:

  • We have articles on lightship stations, like Lightship Nantucket, which are summary articles of the lightships to bear that name.
  • We have articles on individual lightships with their hull numbers, like Nantucket Lightship LV58 / Nantucket Lightship LV112
  • We have articles on individual lightships under their station names without a hull number, like Lightship Chesapeake.
    • Notice how some are "Lightship Place" and others are "Place Lightship". From a quick web search, I'm not sure there's consistency, but it seems that the place-name comes first for ships and second for stations. That at least keeps these separate, but it's easy to confuse them.

My proposal would be that we do the following:

  1. Remove Infobox ship on station articles. Maybe we need a new infobox for that, but right now calling it a ship is misleading. (And it's not a class because the many lightships which make up a station are very different over time.)
  2. Move individual lightship articles which are named as a station to include their hull number, either LV, WAL, or WLV depending on whichever it was primarily known by. (LV until 1950, WAL from 1950 to 1965, WLV from 1965 to the end of the lightvessel service?)
Hull number may not be the right term since the number was frequently used to identify the ship when her station wasn't known or when she was not posted at a lightship station. (Such as the LV116 when she was transferred to guard duty, 1939-1945.)
  1. For lightvessels which are known by multiple names, use the name it is most known by and create redirects for the others. (This could be many, if the vessel was moved frequently. 116, for example, was the Feswick, Chesapeak, and Delaware.)
Alternatively, we could standardize them as "United States Lightvessel 116", but we'd still need the redirects, so I see no point.
  1. Come up with a new category (what should it be?) to put the station articles in.
  2. Also, most lightvessels that served during WWI were impressed into the US Navy, but I don't believe they were given USS designations. Should those be catted into a subcat or Category:Ships of the United States Navy? (My guess is no, but they should be in "Aux ships of WWI"...)
  3. Those that served after 1939 were transferred to the US Coast Guard. Do we cat them under there as well?
  4. Also, most that served during WW2 were refitted with deck guns. I don't know if that changes their cats any.

I'm hoping to open this up for discussion and see what the consensus is. This is a small number of articles now, but better to get it figured out before there are too many, right? I think renaming to separate out the stations from the ships is an easy first step and shouldn't be too controversial. JRP (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track here. I had to go and read a few articles to understand what you were referring to. Some standards we have been using are:
  • A government operated ship has to designate its country of origin in the article title so as to be clear for sorting and categorizing. So, United States Lightship Hull should be the standard if these ships were named based on an assigned station.
  • An article should be named using the ship name that it was most well known under or the name it served the longest under with redirects being setup for the less well known names.
  • Ships that were transferred in and out of Navies (in this case the USN) can use the category related to that particular period. WWII ships etc.
  • A lot of USN ships were unarmed so there is no need to specify that.
I'll see if I can think of anything else but I try to stay away from categorization as our category tree is a huge mess. --Brad (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry for the delay. I've been trying to internalize this suggestion, as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) and apply it to this class of ships, without much luck. There are some options, but overall I'm not pleased with it. Let's take Nantucket Lightship LV58, for example.
  • The most common name I can find online for this ship is either "Nantucket Lightship LV58", or "Lightship No. 58". (Or, less frequently, just "LV58".) During its career, it was also known as "Relief Lightship LV58" and "Fire Island Lightship LV58". The name of the ship, if it has any, is either Nantucket or LV58. We've been using LV58, the hull number, as the names in the articles but that isn't necessarily right.
  • Based on that, it's unclear to me if the MOS suggests that we rename this to "United States lightship Nantucket (LV58)" or "United States lightship LV58 (1894)" It depends on which part you interpret as the name of the vessel. (In writing, it was usually referred to by its number when talking about the lifetime of a ship, but nearly as often it could be called the Nantucket to mean the ship at a particular moment in time.)
    • In this plan, I am still uncertain whether the hull number should be rendered "LV58", "LV-58", "LV 58". A google search finds it all three ways. I'm leaving it un-spaced for now.
  • We should still list all names, with the station elements included, in the leads of the articles.
  • We may want to make exceptions for lightships that had actual names. WLV-612 and WLV-613 appear to break the trend by being called Nantucket I and Nantucket II in literature. (But even here, it's just an odd case whether they were rotation at the station.) There are also lightships which are converted to museums using the "(Place) lightship (number)" format, and those are a difficult choice since I don't know whether the museum name or the ship name takes precedence.
I want to build consensus, not break it. Either route here will mean renaming ALL of the lightship articles. (Maybe a dozen only, so not too bad.) At this moment, I'm leaning toward the station being the name, such as "United States lightship Nantucket (LV58)". A good argument can be made the other way, but since it would mean that we would be putting the hull number in italics and WP:NC-S specifically says not to, that wins out by default. Either way, we have to create a lot of redirects for all of the alternate names of the ship.
Unless anyone has any concerns, I'll start renaming articles in a day or two. I'll place a note on the relevant talk pages for the discussion to come here so that issues can be raised in a public forum. Any objections? JRP (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with WP:NC-S is there are some unresolved issues on the talk page which have gathered no response or no consensus. Sometimes you have to wing it. What this comes down to in the end is finding a convention that satisfies general references of third parties but also important is finding a convention that fits with Wikipedia. As with the dilemma on Coast Survey Ship where CSS had already been used on Wikipedia to designate Confederate States Ship.
  • "United States lightship LV58 (1894) would be redundant unless there was more than one lightship with the hull number LV58. (unlikely)
  • "United States lightship Nantucket (LV-58) would fit the convention of hull numbers using the dash. The dash is a Wikipedia convention regardless of what military or government standards have been. I think this example is the best method.
  • WLV-612 and WLV-613 appear to be United States Coast Guard designations as the W is always the tip-off. Prefix Shipname (WLV-612) would apply here if there is a clear military use of a prefix for these ships. A US Coast Guard Cutter is referred to as USCGC for example. --Brad (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Any US lightship still in use after a certain date became integrated with the Coast Guard and all of the hull numbers were changed. Do we have a prefix for coast guard lightships? (USCGLV or USCGLS might be fine, but I don't want to invent a prefix out of whole cloth.) JRP (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've wandered over to the USCG index (which has moved: it's now here), and based on what they've listed I would suggest that it makes more sense to keep the hull number as the main part of the article name, and make "Lightship XX" a redirect or disambig. We're going to run into problems when we get articles on "unnamed" early ships, as the name pedants will insist on hull number names anyway, because the literature seems (as far as I've seen thus far) to invariably refer to them that way. Therefore, I'm inclined to vote for "United States Lightship hull". Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you are both right. For example, DANFS seems to favor the station names for the ships that it covers. (See, for example: [1]) Using the station names also makes it easier for the ships which are now museum ships since the names will be the same. But, I argued for hull numbers before and so there's a lot of truth for that. (Especially, as you point out, for the handful of ships that are known ONLY by hull number.) As for the pre-hull numbered ships, I suspect it will be a while before we are writing United States lightship ZZ. What I find tricky is that some of the ships certainly were' known by their station names as read names (especially the Nantuckets), others don't seemed to ever be called that way. I think the weight of evidence is leaning ever so slightly toward the station names... but only by a feather weight. JRP (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The "station name" (really "whatever is painted on the side of the ship at present") version is only going to work for surviving ships and maybe a couple which met with catastrophic ends while on station. And incidentally, this would mean putting LV-114 in as "Lightship New Bedford" even though there's nothing like such a station. It doesn't help us for any of the rest, unless we decide that they are all non-notable, because I don't think we can really pick a particular (station) name for them. To pick an example, LV-107 was posted at three different stations (one of them twice) and also used for examinations and for relief. It's impossible to say that it's particularly associated with one of these possibilities. And if it were deemed notable (which I'm betting will happen), someone could write an article on it just using the USCG page. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lightship naming revised proposal

On further consideration and research, I have decided to agree with User:Mangoe for some things and keep the original argument for others. This proposal is considered in light the Wikipedia naming convention that has been adopted for other "unnamed" vessels of the US Navy. (For example, Vietnam-era swift boats, WWII-era PT boats (Motor Torpedo Boat PT-34), and others.)
  • For lightships which are now historic places or which through other means have had names assigned to them, we should use that name.
You are talking about Nantucket Lightship LV112 for which the National Historic Landmark (NHL) name is "Lightship No. 112 Nantucket". It would be WP:NRHP practice to use the National Historic Landmark name for a ship, if it is different, rather than the NRHP name. The NHL or NRHP name does not at all have to be the article title if a different name is commonly used, but it should be reflected in the NRHP/NHL infobox, or the NRHP/NHL section of a combo SHIPS/NRHP infobox. Some have local names that seem to take priority for article name over either NHL or NRHP name, such as Swiftsure. doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
By this convention, Swiftsure would be moved to United States lightship Swiftsure (LV-83), but the infobox could say whatever is correct for your NRHP/NHL standards-- Relief, Swiftsure, etc. We're also want to add a ship infobox with the standard ship name and information. All redirects for station names and her two hull numbers would be created. JRP (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify what i meant, Swiftsure is an example of a now-private owner choosing to rename the ship. Official USCG or other lists might keep to last official name before disposed, but i think it is best to defer to the current owner for the article name. I suppose United States lightship Swiftsure (LV-83) is probably close enough for them, but if the owners say, no, we call it just "Swiftsure" then i would be ready to defer to that. (On Swiftsure, although it had once served the Swiftsure lightstation, the ship had "Relief" painted on its side when it was donated in 1963 by the USCG to the Northwest Seaport in Seattle, its current owner. And, it was known as Relief when designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark in 1989, and the NHL program called it, and will always continue to call it, "Lightship No. 83 Relief". It appears that Northwest Seaport has relatively recently chosen, for their own marketing reasons or whatever, to rename it Swiftsure, refering to the light station in its service history closest to Seattle, and has painted "Swiftsure" on its side. The U.S.C.G. description of it uses VESSEL DESIGNATION: LV 83/WAL 508 as title.)
I understand what you mean. This is one of those cases where we have to use case-by-case determinations. Since it's now the Swiftsure and was previously operated by that name, we can use "United States lightship Swiftsure" without any difficulty, even if the US now wants to call it Relief. This seems the best possible name, with only "United States lightship Relief" as being in contention as an alternative. I'd rather keep the USL prefix than call it just the Swiftsure so that it fits better with existing naming conventions. I know there is at least one case where a lightship was renamed in civilian life to a station that it never served at and that's now the name of its museum. In that case, we'd be somewhat harder pressed to use that name as "USL New Bedford" (or whatever) since that's a pseudo-name, but for the Swiftsure I think we're fine. JRP (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For less-distinguished lightships or for lightships that have problematic naming, use just the hull number. When referred to in prose, the number may be italicized. ("The No. 114 was a good ship..." "LV-11 was sunk by a torpedo...") This seems to be a common way of referring to the ship and should be allowed.
  • Lightships prior to hull numbers (which was adopted in the 1860s or so in the lighthouse service, much earlier than in the USN), should use their (alphabetic) provisional hull numbers if possible or be evaluated on a case by case basis if other names are more appropriate.
  • Since hull numbers are unique in the lightship service, an additional disambiguating launch date is not necessary in any titles.
  • Use of the station name as the ship name in lists of alternate names for the vessel (and in the leads of the articles) is encouraged. We're not denying that the station names are alternate names for the ships, only that they are no longer useful out of context.
Thoughts on this? Any objections to applying this to existing articles? JRP (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It occurred to me that since we've been discussing a naming convention that this whole topic should really be copied over to Naming Conventions Ships as I noticed that you placed a message there. That way it will remain where others asking the same questions may see it in the future. --Brad (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just found my way to this. Glad you are addressing this, there is a mess out there. Lightship Ambrose is one mess, seemingly covering a light station, and covering two separate ships that served there mixed up in one confused infobox; clearly all 3 need separate articles. doncram (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have created or edited several of the U.S. NRHP lightship articles. To know what we are talking about here, is there a list of all the lightships with articles already? I have added some at Lightvessel#American lightships, not sure if there may be any more comprehensive list. Perhaps most are shown in Category:Lightships. There has recently been some heated discussion over Lighthouse naming; in my view the name of an article does not matter too much and if locals prefer one name strongly let them have it. For list-articles of all the ships, you can use some satisfyingly consistent convention if you like, but wikilink to articles having a variety of common name types. SHIP infoboxes can use some convention for the title of the infobox, which may differ from the article title. NRHP/NHL infoboxes (or sections of SHIP infoboxes) should reflect the official NRHP/NHL name of the ship. doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Note My proposal is only for naming of US government lightships, that is lightships operated by the United States Lighthouse Establishment (17xx–1852), United States Lighthouse Board (1852–1910), United States Lighthouse Service (1910–1939), or the United States Coast Guard (1939&ndashPresent). Civilian lightships may be named differently, but those could be appearing on those lists as well. We should separate out civilian vs. government lightships if there is ever enough of them with articles to cause confusion. JRP (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of any U.S. "civilian" lightships, if you mean ones that were civilian when operated as lightships at light stations. The museum lightships may be private / non-profit owned now, so perhaps those are what you would call civilian now? Anyhow, to be clear, do you mean the proposal for naming them too, or not? doncram (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In my research, I found a small number of privately owned lightships (as lightships). I don't remember any in particular and don't think there are any that have articles. I was just including this note for clarity. JRP (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
What about the term "Lightvessel" vs. "Lightship"? I don't have big opinions on that myself, but some who developed the Lightvessel article may, perhaps for world-wide rather than U.S. perspective. There needs to be one basic article on Lightships (or Lightvessels) and a section or a separate list-article List of Lightships (or List of Lightvessels). doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The US uses 'lightship' while other English-speakers appear to use 'lightvessel', but even within the US there is some debate because the hull numbers are 'LV' or 'WLV' which implies the second name. My suggestion is to use 'United States lightship BLAH' because that is the term that is used in the US. Other countries should use what is locally appropriate as their prefix.
For reference, the OED defines a lightship as "A vessel bearing a light, esp. one with a warning light or lights moored where a lighthouse cannot conveniently be placed; a floating light." The OED only defines a "light-vessel" as "See: Light-ship", but the date given for the first use of the term is twenty years after lightship.
If anything, that only complicates the issue in finding the "correct" term for us to use. Note also that the first US lightship appears to predate the coining of the term "lightvessel". But since there is no difference between the two terms except convention, the category and the lists which cross country borders should use Lightvessel, if that is more standard. JRP (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus, Proposed Vote on ship naming

I believe that we are at an impasse. I gather from not only my own observations but the comments of others that we believe that the current naming system which includes disambig pages works and that no changes are needed. Some disagree with this and propose a radical re-naming so that every ship article conforms to one naming convention. Unfortunately, I do not see any change to the naming convention coming out of this discussion.-MBK004 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Options
  • (1) The current system of disambig pages (e.g. HMS Victorious and USS Texas) which uses hull numbers or pennant numbers in modern navies when possible, launch dates when that is not possible, and some famous ship exceptions which use neither. ((USS Constitution and HMS Victory)).
  • (2) As Sandpiper has suggested, all articles should be uniformly titled with the year of launch.
Votes

Yes I know voting is evil, but it is the easiest way to determine consensus.

My impression of the discussion above is that no one else is supporting my view, so MBK is being kind saying 'some'. However, this remains a classic case where several editors dedicated to a page appear out of the woodwork when the status quo is challenged. Most people, like me before today, have never visited this page nor considered the question. I came here because after what seemed very sensibly named ships with years, I found some with incomprehensible numbers in the titles. I suspect the comments above, and on a different page complaining about naming, are from passers by who have come to a similar opinion, but their temporary presence to make the point will be forgotten. Thus the evils of calling a vote without telling everyone something is being voted on. Mugabe, eat your heart out.

eh? WP:SHIPS was notified, whereas you only saw fit to notify the person who posted nine months ago who had expressed the position you supported. Beware WP:CANVASS. Benea (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Beware people who resort to cliches to support their argument. How many countries consider that democracry consists in only asking the view of those people in the room when the prime minister announces he wants to have an election? Likely to be his friends? no, surely not! You are accusing a disinterested passer by who was never here before today of bias? I am amazed how many determined people have joined in this discussion on a page with nothing going on before today. Hmm. Sandpiper (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hardly disinterested, he supported your view and you perhaps thought it would rather good if he would come back and do the same again. As I said before, a neutrally worded notice was placed at WP:SHIPS notifying people of this discussion (as this guideline page falls under the purview of the project), and inviting people to comment. But quite apart from wikipeda not being a democracy anyway, this has all taken a turn from the bizarre if you are trying to compare this to Robert Mugabe. Benea (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Dates are not a strong point when discussing ships, I see. I supported his view. Sandpiper (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, no one has convinced me the benefits of pennant numbers for the general population. No one has said how they help, really. Placing incomprehensible items into a title seems to me obviously a silly thing to do, even if a small number of people understand what they mean. Arc Royal now seems to have a penant number R05. How can such a small number not be repetitive? I see there is an HMS Eagle R05 and HMS Urania R05. The R05 does not mean anything. It is only the tiny size of the navy now which makes the system have few name collisions? Sandpiper (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have changed the options from the descriptions that MBK provided so as to not express opinions (his or anyone else's) in the option descriptions. Let's be gentle-people about this. JRP (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What constitutes a modern navy? Sandpiper (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like an answer to that question as well. I am (for instance) quite happy with pennant numbers for Royal Navy ships in commission, but they seem idiosyncratic for WWII-era RN ships. Equally I am quite happy with the use of numbers for all US Navy vessels since the system was introduced in the 1890s. The Land (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I can go with pennant numbers for ships still in the UK navy. That would make an immediate distinction between past and present ships, which would probably be a good thing. The pennanting would then be a correct identifier. Sandpiper (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine the the US hull numbers, as they are indeed widely used and unique. But pennant numbers are messy. A ship may have more than one, the same number may have been assigned to multiple ships, and the encoding is arbitrary and changed over time. I would not even use them for current ships, per Wikipedia:MOS#Precise_language: "Avoid statements that will date quickly" (the set of commissioned ships changes, hence we would need to rename a lot). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Objections to vote

Hey! What's with the voting! You have been discussing this on the talk page for only 11 hours!!!! This is FAR too early to conduct a vote! Please stop, take some steps to invite comment from other users, and have a debate first... Regards, The Land (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
While I think it is indeed too premature to call a vote, I would also say that most views have been thrashed out on here already. It remains to make sure that as many people as possible have a chance to have their say or be made aware of the discussion. And quite frankly the comparison with the President of Zimbabwe is utterly uncalled for and distasteful. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we want to get into discussing that here, but actually it is not. wiki does not operate under democracy, and nor does he. It would be more accurate to say wiki operates on a system of playground bullying. Sandpiper (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather to early to vote on two extreme proposals. As far as I can say, US hull numbers of modern ships are often used. They are also somewhat informative, as they encode the ship type in a mnemonic way. UK pennant numbers, on the other hand, are very rarely used (I know that none of my books use them) and almost entirely uninformative. We have, more than a year after the last discussion, half of the QE's by year: HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913), HMS Malaya (1915), HMS Warspite (03), HMS Barham (04). What is very interesting is that about 2.5 times more links go to the redirect HMS Barham (1914) than to the pennant number page. I find that strong evidence that at least for this case, the disambiguation by year has more traction and is more useful (and, of course, that few people have an interest in moving pages at all ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting on this is a bad idea (WP:VOTE). You're not going to establish a consensus by having a poll, as you can't reach a consensus by one camp winning an argument - the eventual solution needs to be agreed by all concerned parties. To the point in question, I quite understand the reasoning behind this idea, and to some extent agree with it. Pennant numbers inherently contain no information that can help date a ship. However, it seems to be that this is less about year vs pennant number, and more about when a pennant number becomes acceptable. All of the confusing ones cited in all of this are the ones with no preceding letter, ie HMS Barham (04). So is it being said that pennant numbers are acceptable once a preceding letter is used? I suppose the other thing is that as an encyclopædia, it is good to be consistent. Obviously if you are going to use a completely consistent naming method then you have to go with years, as pennant/hull numbers are only a (relatively) recent thing. But as has been said, most ships today are referred to by their pennant numbers - I for example could not say when HMS Ark Royal was launched, off the top of my head, but I know she is R07 as it is emblazoned on her superstructure. I'm not lending support to either argument right now, just trying to define exactly what the real problem here is... Martocticvs (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

After re-reading all of the above discussion, it appears that the most contentious issue in the debate is the use of pennant numbers for Royal Navy ships. As such, I went back and re-read the Pennant number article. For those not familiar with that article, it states that while the RN started using pennant numbers prior to WWI, the system underwent several radical revisions in the first four or five decades it was used. For example, in 1910 ships in the 2nd and 3rd fleets were given a lettre based on their naval depot, so a "D" pennant represented HMNB Devonport. After several more revamps, cruisers and aircraft carriers were assigned "I" ... until 1940 when they were switched to "D" (at that time "I" then became destroyers ... along with "G" and "H").

However all that changed in 1948 when the RN totally revised the system. At that time all commissioned ships were issued a new pennant number where the lettre represents the ship type ("C" is for cruisers, all destroyers were switched to "D" pennants, "F" for frigates, "M" for minehunters, etc.) Likewise several NATO and Commonwealth navies agreed to use the same system in order to ensure that all ships have a unique pennant number regardless of their navy of origin. As an example, ships of the Belgian Naval Component are numbered 9xx, so its frigates have pennant numbers like F930, minesweepers like M917, etc. The pennant number of the Royal Netherlands Navy is 8xx, so its frigates are F802, minesweepers like M863, etc.

As all of these post-1948 pennant numbers actually do mean something, I would propose that:

  • USN ships currently in commission and those decommissioned after the late 19th century introduction of the hull classification system have articles named with their hull classification symbol
  • USN ships decommissioned prior to the advent of the hull classification system have their articles named with their launch year
  • RN ships currently in commission and those decommissioned after the 1948 rationalisation of the pennant number system have their articles named with their pennant number
  • RN ships decommissioned prior to 1948 have their articles named with their launch year
  • ships of all other navies have their articles named with their pennant/hull number if available, or launch year if not

This proposed compromise solution would ensure that articles are given the most meaningful name possible, while also allowing for easy disambiguation. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with this. Nice job on doing the research! -MBK004 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, this gives a standardised convention that ensures that ships are titled with an accurate and useful identifier, whilst allow standardisation between navies. Benea (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I would propose one or two minor changes. First, for the RN I would change this to "* RN ships decommissioned prior to 1948 have their articles named with their launch year" (otherwise ships may still have several different pennant numbers, and many WW2 ships will be disambiguated with pennant numbers they did not carry during the most important part of their careers). Secondly, for other navies I would use the same standard as or the RN: If ships are first commisioned under the new system, they get pennant numbers (if available, of course), otherwise dates. Good work on identifying the problem and suggesting a good first compromise! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I specifically picked decommissioned because many RN ships had three pennant numbers during this era (one pre-1940, another from 1940 - 1948, and a final one after 1948), however the pennant number issued during the 1948 rationalisation of the system is the one that is both the most informative and unique. This also effectively resolves the issue Sandpiper raised during the discussion regarding how exactly "older" and "modern" ships are defined (aka pre hull/rationalised pennant numbers vs. post hull/rationalised pennant numbers). --Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me as well. Good work, Kralizec! Parsecboy (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also support this proposal. I like the injection of "common sense" over rigid policy guidelines that this solution provides because one size does not "fit all" for all Navies and different era and different systems should be applied to Wikipedia differently, as necessary and within reason. JRP (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it now the case that pennant numbers are not being re-used when a ship leaves a navy and is replaced? (The pennant numbers I saw applied to current UK aircraft carriers were rather small and there must have been more since 1948). I see the merits of using meaningfull unique fleet numbers, it is random ones which are particularly objectionable. Similarly, are the numbers now consistent between US and European navies without overlap? While the navy (HMS) prefix already distinguishes between nationalities, this would be a very good argument for using these numbers. If this is adopted, it would also be an argument to NOT use pennant numbers for ships with the old systems, which would be inconsistent with the general pattern. Sandpiper (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick interjection. Does "HMS" distinguish between nationalities on Wikipedia? It doesn't seem to. For example, HMS Orion is a ship of the Swedish navy and Category:Royal Swedish Navy ships has many more. Or, is this a case where these articles are not up to current naming standards already and they should be moved en masse to, for example, HSwMS Orion. JRP (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
HMS is correctly used for ships of both the Royal (UK) and Royal Swedish navies. I see absolutely no point in inventing a new term (which would go against Wikipedia's guidelines anyway) purely to highlight the difference in nationality. It should be obvious within articles which navy any particular ship belongs to - if it isn't then the article needs rewording in some way - and all anyone need do is click the link to see straight away which navy it belongs to, so there is no reason to move away from the current, real, situation we have here.
As for Krazilec's suggestion - I give my support to that. It is reasoned and logical. I think there is something to the point about making it based on ships commissioned after '48 as opposed to decommissioned after '48... if you consider the present situation regarding the other aspect of ship article names that can at times be somewhat ambiguous - the actual name of the ship, for ships that have had several names - we name the article, in most cases, according to the name the ship carried when she partook in her most notable part of her career. Wikipedia is all about consistency really, as it is a system and logical consistency is essential to it, and so we should consider this. If we take a hypothetical ship (as I'm not familiar enough with WWII ships to give a real example, though I'm sure there are several), let's call her HMS Example, and give her a WWII pennant number of G104, denoting that she is a destroyer. Say she was involved in a particular incident during the war that gives her particular notability. After the war, she was given the pennant number D123, and did basically nothing until being broken up in say, 1949. According to Wikepedia's general naming policies, an article about this ship should be titled HMS Example (G104), but because she was decommissioned after '48, under the proposals the article would be named HMS Example (D123), a designation by which almost no one would know her. So I think that particular amendment is logical as well. Martocticvs (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that that I see is how do you define the most notable actions? A ship that was involved in the First World War, but then served in the interwar period and then the Second World War (some of the V and W class destroyers at least spring to mind) would have served in a number of notable events, under as many as three pennant numbers, so which one to choose? HMS Royal Oak (08) is primarily remembered for her loss, under the pennant '08', but the proposal would suggest not having her at the pennant number for that event, but at the launch year. Ships like HMS Swiftsure (08) and HMS Vanguard (23) were commissioned before 1948, but spent most of their careers under the standardised pennant in common with their contemporaries who were commissioned after 1948. It makes sense for standardisation to say that if a ship was part of the revised system and carried a standardised pennant during her career (i.e. she was in service in 1948) then that disambiguates the title. If she was never part of the system and never carried a standardised pennant, then the launch year should be used. This is rather than that a ship was part of the system and carried a revised pennant, but not during a particular period during which (like Vanguard) she may not have done anything notable, or even been in commission. Benea (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that there would still be some judgment calls on ships of this era. While it is relatively easy for us to determine that the USS Intrepid (CV-11) article should be named with CV-11 in her title (despite serving variously as CV-11, CVA-11, and CVS-11), or that HMS Prince of Wales (53) be titled with the pennant number she had when sunk, others may not be so cut-and-dried. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Except that, as I understand the proposal above, she would be titled HMS Prince of Wales (1939), because she never had a pennant under the last revised system from 1948? Sandpiper (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This would suggest that the proposal would be subordinate to the 'name under which she was involved in her most notable actions' part of the guidelines - so HMS Hood (51), HMS Edinburgh (16). This would seem to revive the original problem, the belief that these numbers are unhelpful and meaningless, even if she carried out her most notable actions under it. Is the proposal to name all RN ships decommissioned prior to 1948 with their launch names, or only those that did not have more notable careers under a pennant (i.e. did not serve in the Second World War)? Benea (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would hope all. I have never once read a historic ship of the RN referred to by its pennant number. By contrast the launch date is generally referred to. HMS Hood (51) is meaningless to me as an enthusiast for naval history. The Land (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating what I said above: I agree with The Land, and I would prefer to only use pennant numbers for ships that have been first commissioned under the post-1948 system, so that they (hopefully) had one and only one pennant number. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Benea, I think if a ship is famous for a particular thing, then the convention would be simply to name her HMS Hood [nothing], because anyone typing hood would most probably be after that ship not any other. Otherwise some sort of add on is needed conforming to a pattern readers can make sense of. I still havn't had response re my queries whether post 1948 pennants are in fact unique international non-reusable identifiers, but where ships have served under pre- 1948 conditions, it is clear they are not. Thus I would still want date years for RN ships in service before that time. I am not at all convinced that every retired vessel should not be listed by launch date, and only those still in service have pennant ids. This still seems the best way of categorising what effectively are historic events. I don't see having to switch over names when a ship retires as a major difficulty, there aren't that many. Sandpiper (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Further new proposal, Why not use both suffix identifiers

I just had a quick look at the article on pennants and hull numbers. First, pennants are not a NATO system, since the main NATO navy the USA still uses its own system. Second, it is basically just a way of ramming all the countries own codes into a system so that no two ships have the same code, but otherwise some codes are downright confusing between navies and could imply entirely different sorts of ships. It is quite clear from the code allocations between navies, that they are expected to re-use pennant numbers for different ships when old ones retire. Thus we could prefectly well get two aircraft carriers called HMS ARC Royal (03). The article on US codes only says that they form a unique set for ships in service now. It does not seem to say whether numbers within a class numbers are re-used on ships retirement? I think probably not, but the system still gives only a general idea of actual age of a ship. I am still of the opinion that dates are the best way to differentiate ships and automatically allow a comparison across all vessels when searching lists. I would suggest that whatever else is done, a date should be included in every ship name. I am not opposed to having ID numbers as well. I don't see that making the names longer by adding a date would be an issue. I would have no problem with exceptions for noteable famous ships. My objection has always been not that there is no merit in id numbers, but that if only one thing is to be used, a date conveys more information. We can have both. So suffix (R02, 1995) (G157, 1922) and for four extra characters we can all have included the part we want and everyone can be happy? I would prefer this to either suffix alone, and it just might stop this dabate recurring every year. Sandpiper (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about adding both date and pennant number. The core of WP:NAME is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I think HMS Warspite (1913) is reasonably natural to link to, but HMS Warspite (1913) (03) would be rather horrible. As for lists, there is no problem with adding additional information to the name outside the link: HMS Warspite (1913) Pennant number 03. This is only a problem for categories (although it can be done for them as well, with [[Category: Battleships| HMS Warspite (1913) Pennant number 03]] (which, admittedly, is ugly as hell). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I gave two arbitrary examples of how I would see it written, 'HMS Warspite (03, 1913)'. Only one bracket is needed. If you feel the '03' would not be understandable without saying 'pennant 03' then the same problem would exist if only the pennant number was used. Maybe they have changed it, but I thought 'category: HMS Warspite|fee fie foo' would produce the entry 'HMS Warspite', but alphabetised according to the place of 'fee fie foe' in the category? I agree, I think just a date is sufficient as 'what the greatest number of english speakers would recognise' , but an argument has been made that eg in the US case codes are a natural descriptor. I don't see why both camps cannot be satisfied using both. I think people knowledgeable about the subject may find codes useful, whereas I firmly believe non-expert readers will be helped much more by a date. I noticed that the US navy webpage listing pictures of ships described them all using the name, hull code and date. Sandpiper (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
One potential problem with both a pennant and a date within the same set of parentheses is that it might be misread as a month-year combination. However the naming convention is resolved, I feel strongly that the disambiguation should be either one or the other but not both. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with that fully. Whatever solution we come to has to be elegant - having a year and pennant number is too much info for a title. Where are we at now? Seems we have agreement that a) all ships decommissioned prior to 1948 should be titled with the launch year (or acquisition year if bought/captured from elsewhere), and b) all ships launched/commissioned from 1948 onwards should be titled with the pennant number. If I'm right there, then we just need to agree how to handle the ships that straddle those two groups. I'm leaning towards launch year for them, as to me it makes more sense. Martocticvs (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Concur, one or the other, never both. The Land (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The system I would prefer would be to have original pennant number for US Navy ships that had them, and launch/acquisition year for everything else. USS Maine (BB-10) is pre-1948, but is just fine as its pennant number is a good identifier and gives a strong hint as to whether the ship is older or younger than USS Maine (BB-69). Deleting pennant numbers from BB-10 and ACR-1 makes no sense as they are clear identifiers, that you could search for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs)

The US Navy numbers are not pennant numbers, but hull numbers (with a hull classification). I think we have a reasonably good consensus that those are ok, anyways. We are primarily discussing the use of RN pennant numbers, and I'd be fine with your suggestion as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hull numbers are used by more than just the USN. Off the top of my head, I believe the hull number system is also used by the Australian, Canadian, Chilean, and Peruvian navies. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The RAN used pennants until the 1960s, when they adopted and adapted the hull number system. -- saberwyn 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge and convoluted discussion (in which I have so far taken no part). There are some points to bear in mind, some of which I do not think have been made. Firstly the US hull number system is NOT the same as the system of pennant numbers. The USN assigns a hull number to each vessel when ordering that vessel, which it retains throughout its life. The pennant numbers used in the RN and most other navies are open to change, and indeed during WW2 and WW2 many ships changed their pennant numbers several times. Trying to identify a ship using only her pennant number at a specific time (and obviously her name) would require multiple disambiguations.

The second point, which indeed has been made above, is that the system of pennant numbers is fairly modern and therefore is of no use in identifying pre-WW1 RN vessels going back to Tudor times (of which there were rather more than in WW1 and WW2 combined!). Even among those fascinated by our topic, I doubt if many could name the precise date upon which pennant numbers were introduced; thus how do YOU know at what exact point to draw the line between "modern" and "older" vessels, even if you wish to run two disparate systems?

As the USN would seem to be the "odd man out", might I suggest that the solution for its ships should be to use BOTH the hull number (with the category letters please, not just the numerals!) AND the year of launch (or acquisition)? Thus, as an example, the last battleship launched for the USN should be referenced as "USS Missouri BB.63 (1943)".

One exception that clearly has to be made, in adopting a convention to utilise launch years (in brackets) after a ship's name, is for ships which were acquired by the navy concerned a year or more AFTER its launch (specifically existing ships which were captured or purchased). Clearly it is ridiculous to identify a ship by, say, the year of launch when that ship was not acquired by the navy for years or decades after. Take for example a 'Land-Lease' destroyer like HMS Lancaster, acquired by the RN in 1940; it would be silly to try to identify that by the year of launch (1918, as USS Philip), particularly as there was a significant HMS Lancaster (the armoured cruiser of 1902) in existance until 1920. In those circumstances it is the date of acquisition that is significant; but the perceptive will realise that for ships which were actually built for any navy, the launch date IS the date of acquisition. Hope this makes it clear. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


No ship prefixes

Hi, I find the naming convention for military ships without a standard ship prefix rather odd. I mean, in the Wikipedia the title of articles is directly the name unless a clarification is in parenthesis to disambiguate (Mars and Mars (mythology)). The naming convention for military ships of "(Nationality) (type) (Name)" breaks that common usage (in fact, that articles start with e.g. "Maxim Gorky was a Soviet Red Banner light cruiser…" and not "The Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky was a…"). Why? Does it have anything to do with hull numbers? Best regards, —surueña 18:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess it's more to do with the fact that most ship names are repeated, sometimes internationally, but frequently within nations; and ships are often named after people or places. So if there is no clear way of designating the ship with 'HMS' or similar it is difficult to have an unambiguous yet informative title. The Land 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean, it's OK to include in the title the "Nationality type" convention, however the usual practice in Wikipedia would be to put that disambiguation info in parenthesis, i.e. instead of Soviet cruiser Maxim Gorky why not using the more conventional Maxim Gorky (Soviet cruiser)? The year can also be included if needed (e.g. Maxim Gorky (1938 Soviet cruiser)). Of course, I can help with the renaming if you think this is sound. Best regards, —surueña 10:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it - there are thousands of ship articles, and there is very little wrong with the current method. The Land 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This wouldn't be the first time nor the last a policy change involve thounsands of changes, I wouldn't worry about that (as I said, I can do work on this, I've lots of patience! :-). Anyway, this doesn't need to be done at once, it can be done incrementally. So, I don't want to waste our time with this proposal (I don't know much about ships, this is only to follow the usual Wikipedia conventions), please, do you really think this naming policy is adequate? Any exceptions to the rule? Thanks again for your interest! —surueña 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with The Land; the current policy seems to be working fine. -- Hongooi 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There has been an international standard since the first world war. use it. IMO Bluenorway (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"The" with H.M. ships

Looking for comments on "the Xxx". The guide currently says:

"The" is not needed before the name of a ship (but neither is it wrong):

However, Commander A. Covey-Crump, authority on Royal Navy tradition, says:

H.M. Ships may only correctly be described as "H.M.S. So-and-so", or "The So-and-so" or "The cruiser So-in-so;" the name of the ship without any prefix is by old custom, an Admiral's method of referring to the Captain of that ship in person. The same rule applies in the French navy. . .
-- Covey Crump, "H.M. Ships"

This means that "Victory was Nelson's flagship. . ." is wrong; it should be HMS Victory was Nelson's flagship. . .", or "The Victory. . .". Should we not incorporate this rule into our guidelines? I guess I will if no-one has a reason not to.

We could almost fix {{HMS}} so that {{HMS|Victory|3=2}} displays "The Victory", not "Victory"... nah, that would probably be bad. -- — Johan the Ghost seance 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

However "correct" the Royal Navy source (if that's where it's from) may be, what we strive to do at Wikipedia is not proscribe usage but reflect existing usage. I'm quite sure that there are numerous sources that refer to the various HM ships as "The Shipname", "the HMS Shipname", "HMS Shipname" (and probably other variations, as well). As long as we are reflecting the common practice in sources out there, there is no need to try and conform to some official, pedantic proscription. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to be pedantic; however, we should try to be correct. The source I quoted does indeed come from the Royal Navy (click the link and see); in fact Commander A. Covey-Crump is a recognized authority on these things. And interestingly, looking at the examples of existing usage you quoted, both "The Shipname", and "HMS Shipname" comply with Covey-Crump's rules. "The HMS Shipname" is obviously awkward -- "The His Majesty's Ship xxx". So that form may be in use somewhere, but I'd say it's pretty clearly wrong. — Johan the Ghost seance 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed this in the past, and it isn't really a matter of taking the RN's word for it - it's just grammar! "Victory" or "the Victory" or "the ship Victory" are both grammatically fine, but "the His Majesty's Ship Victory" doesn't work. It makes a lot more sense as to why it grates if you read it aloud to yourself :-) For the USN, both forms work - "the Constitution" and "the United States Ship Constitution" both make sense.
I'd recommend agreeing with the quote above on "the HMS" (ie, don't use it), but I'm perfectly happy with us continuing to use Victory (no article or prefix) to refer to the ship, where it makes sense in context. (The first appearance of it in the text, it's probably worth attatching something to the plain name) Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides which, using shipname to refer to the commanding officer of said ship is naval jargon - it does not conform to normal English or common usage, so really has no place outside naval correspondence. Martocticvs (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair points. Thanks for the responses. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#User:Bluenorway.23Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The forms you present are horribly erroneous and inconclusive, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention Bluenorway (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a revision of the current consensus naming conventions? If you are, perhaps you could offer a specific proposal here of what you would like to see changed so that it may be commented on. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Working on a full parser template with bot processing now, see the other ships talk... According to the naval authorities and original intent documents, the TITLE of the vessel is a granted title from a government or crown authority, it is not part of the name of the vessel. Vessels should be identified and articles built to follow the guide structure above. The parser needs to be able to accept all vessel titles, regardless of nationality, obviously USS and USNS etc are american, however you seem to be missing many of the others. The styling for text is accurate, what we need to determine is how to process every reference to a vessel thoroughly and make sure redirects go to the correct sub reference within each page. One vessel can have multiple titles simultaneously, operating under various authorities. The same physical vessel (identified by the original given name and hull ID) has sub topics (here) for its various operations, authorities, and activities. see the linked topic and someone merge all of this to a standard template —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia ship articles are named the way they are so as to disambiguate by nationality. It is entirely necessary to include such prefixes as USS or HMS in the article title. Also Wikipedia does not follow military jargon (which your proposal essentially is) but rather general usage on every day language. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a technical database. Martocticvs (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are supposed to be credible, also, many vessels retain name when passed between countries or authorities (UN authority, transfers within NATO or pacific regions, etc) There is only one correct solution, otherwise you end up with the current 30+ redundant vessel articles and none of them populated with accurate data from highest authority sources... This really needs automation, there are only a certain set of titles/standard names (as recorded) for any vessel, a table of these would be sufficient and make the entire situation far more effective and coherent, no less accurate. Bluenorway (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try laying out in a clear manner exactly what it is you are proposing, then? Right now I'm just seeing lots of musts and shoulds and the details are lacking. Martocticvs (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... I'm not quite clear what's being proposed either, beyond it looking a bit more complex than the current system - which, after all, works well enough. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Prefix meanings?

It would be helpful if the Project page included a list of prefixes and their meaning. Eg:

ARA Armada de la República Argentina (Argentine naval prefix)
CSS Confederate States Ship
HMS Her/His Majesty's Ship
HMAS Her/His Majesty's Australian Ship
HMHS Her/His Majesty's Hospital Ship
HMNZS Her/His Majesty's New Zealand Ship (NZ Naval prefix)
M/V Motor Vessel
RMS Royal Mail Ship
SS Steam Ship
TSS Twin screw steamer
USS United States Ship
USCGC United States Coast Guard Cutter

And there are doubtless more.

In the meantime, if any one can complete the blanks in the above...

-Arb. 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

see Ship prefix. I actually had to use it earlier today to look up TSS for an article you just wrote, heh. Maralia 23:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty more. USNS, for instance: civil crew under authority of USN. Trekphiler (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The ship prefix article link and description could be featured more prominently, perhaps in the lead paragraph before the various sections of the naming conventions page. Sswonk (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

U-boat designations

The “Ships with hull number only” section says:
“..it can be best to spell out the ship type (e.g. Unterseeboot 238), but be sure the ship type name is correct…”
I think his is a bad example, because (I suggest) Unterseeboot is the incorrect term, for a variety of reasons (which I’ve posted here ).
So how (assuming I’m right) do I go about changing the guideline here? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all can you set out your proposed change? What do you think the new titles should be? 'German submarine 47', 'U 47', 'U-boat 47'? It isn't immediately clear from the page you link to as to what you suggest, and writing it out here will allow for a centralised discussion. Benea (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; then I'd suggest "German submarine U-n", to be in line with other KM, and other submarine, pages. As far as the guideline goes, I'm still trying to think of one; "Motor Gun Boat" for "MTB", maybe? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm we had this discussion at WT:SHIPS a short while ago. It was pointed out that 'German submarine U-n' seems to translate as 'German submarine unterseeboot foo', i.e. the submarine aspect is unnecessarily repeated. But from your last post are you proposing a change to just U-boat titles, or ships in general? And what is this change? MTBs are specifically Motor Torpedo Boats, Motor Gun Boats (MGBs), are something explicitly different. Benea (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No, there are two issues:-
Firstly; I am saying Unterseeboot is wrong, for the reasons I listed here;
  • It effectively loses the page,
  • Unterseeboot is a foreign term (the English word is "submarine", or "U-Boat"),
  • Other submarine pages use, for example “Italian submarine...” or "French Submarine...",
  • And other german warships use the same format, eg “German battleship…”.
I am proposing to use the format “German submarine U- “ instead, and am asking for a general discussion on that. I hadn’t seen the discussion but would argue "U- is a designation, as much as anything, so it’s not a tautology to say that (any more than “destroyer Z-1 or whatever).
Secondly; the guideline here says "..it can be best to spell out the ship type" but then gives "Unterseeboot 238" as an example. I am saying that Unterseeboot here is a bad example, for the reasons above, and should be changed. MTB was a suggestion for a different example of a “spelling out the ship type”; it could just as easily be “Soviet submarine K-19”, or whatever. Here I just want a better example in the guidelines. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, you would like to change the GUIDELINE for naming of U-Boat articles from (for example) Unterseeboot 238 to German submarine U-238. I see the logic in your idea, and I'm generally supportive. Are you proposing to move the extant articles as well? Most new pages, I imagine, will be started from red links or to match current articles. Changing the guideline alone won't make much difference without a lot of changes to the articles - I imagine. Shem (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I would support this change (and the corresponding moves). Submarine U x is not really redundant. In Germany, U x would be used as the name, not an abbreviation followed by a number. While everyone assumes the U to stand for "U-Boot" or "Unterseeboot", you'll not encounter the expanded version. German Wikipedia, e.g., uses "U x" as the name (as e.g. in de:U 75 (Kriegsmarine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Shem: The short answer is yes
In answer to the second point, in principle I’d like to see all the unterseeboot pages moved, but I thought we could start with the new pages. There are 250-odd pages on WWII boats, of about a possible 1000, and 40-odd pages on WWI boats, of about a possible 400; so there’s plenty of scope. Also a fair number of the existing pages are just stubs; if I improved any of them I’d plan to move them as well. And I’ve come across a lot of old redlinks, which I’ve been deleting recently. (I addressed this here.)
As to the first point, I wanted to change the guideline because I think it’s wrong, but I also want to head off any arguments on a page-by-page basis later on. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away for a bit. I'm intrigued by the idea and also generally supportive. As to taking it forward, before making any of these changes or altering the guideline, you should definitely make a post at WT:SHIPS, and probably one at WT:MILHIST as well to alert the maximum number of people to the discussion. The more consensus we have, the easier it will be if and when you come to implement it. Benea (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I, too, support the proposal, but I also agree with Benea about alerting other WPs. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am generally supportive of the proposal, as well as informing the related Wikiprojects beforehand. However, I do have one somewhat important bit of information regarding to the WWI boats; they should likely use "SM U-xxx", as it was the prefix used (the same as "SMS" used for surface ships). An example of this is the photo of U-1 on Commons here. Also of note, de.wiki uses the same SM U xxx format. This would also avoid the need to disambiguate by year. Parsecboy (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
(as this takes the discussion on a different tack, can I summarize this?
It seems the consensus of those here is to change from using “Unterseeboot n” to “German submarine U-n” for WWII boats, but not for WWI boats. The proposal there is for “SM U-n” and the discussion is below.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to start moving existing WWII U-boat articles to the "German submarine U-nnn" style names, since that seems to be what has been decided. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved all articles between U-750 and U-2000 (not really as many as it sounds) to the new style name, plus added redirects for all. I'll do some more tomorrow. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat designations: SM U?

(First comment copied from section above. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I am generally supportive of the proposal, as well as informing the related Wikiprojects beforehand. However, I do have one somewhat important bit of information regarding to the WWI boats; they should likely use "SM U-xxx", as it was the prefix used (the same as "SMS" used for surface ships). An example of this is the photo of U-1 on Commons here. Also of note, de.wiki uses the same SM U xxx format. This would also avoid the need to disambiguate by year. Parsecboy (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. The Royal Navy has a similar precedent, in that submarines used to be HM Submarine foo. Similar I suppose to HM Sloop, HM Bark, etc. But since the submarines are classed as fully commissioned warships, unlike say the gunboats (HM Motor Gunboat 56 for example), we backdate the prefix and call them HMS, much as the Royal Navy itself does these days. Could a similar situation apply here, and some version of 'SMS U 1', etc be appropriate, similar to the destroyer system, eg SMS G40? So 'Seiner Majestät Unterseeboot 1' = His Majesty's Submarine 1, or 'Seiner Majestät Schiff Unterseeboot 1' = His Majesty's Ship Submarine 1. The Imperial German Navy is not a field I know much about so feel free to ignore this at your leisure. Another interesting point though, 'German submarine U101', 'German submarine U-101' or 'German submarine U 101'? Benea (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a fair point, we do seem to use SMS for WWI German ships; though I don't know why, except for maybe "follow-my-leader", which is the situation I'm wanting to address for Unterseeboot. Other WWI ships use the format "French Battleship..." "Russian Battleship..." etc. And SMS can also apply to Austro-Hungarian ships/U-boats, which makes for confusion. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
We use naval prefixes if the ships actually bore them, so no this is not an arbitrary decision. The First World War era French and Russian navies did not use prefixes, the British, American, Austro-Hungarians and Germans did. The British, German and Austro-Hungarian navies all used the same format, i.e. His/Her Majesty's Ship, which in the German language as used in Austria-Hungary and Germany, translates as Seiner Majestät Schiff., i.e. SMS. But we have a similar situation, both the Royal Navy and the Royal Swedish Navy use 'HMS' (Her Majesty's Ship and Hans Majestäts Skepp respectively.) In that case we just make it clear in the opening section which navy the ship is part of. Benea (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only got 2 books on U-boats: the first, Raiders of the Deep, (by Lowell Thomas, first published in 1928) uses hyphens; the other, the Encyclopedia of U-boats" (Eberhard Möller and Werner Brack, published 2004) does not. It does seem to me that "U 101" is the "correct" way to do it (the Encyclopedia of U-boats is obviously a German work, and de.wiki uses the same format as well), but "U-101" is likely the more familiar format for English speakers (or at least is to me). Benea is quite right in regards to SMS being the same as HMS or USS, and makes a good point with how the RN and Swedish Navy both use HMS as prefixes. An example is SMS Panther/SMS Panther (1885), a simple hatnote explains that the article is about either the German or AH navy ship. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "U-101" (with a hyphen) is the most common designation I have seen in English. It's worth noting, however, that the German Wikipedia uses "U 101" (space) style. They also refer to WWI U-boats as "SM U 101", supporting the prefix discussed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I note that Xyl 54 is busy addressing the Austro-Hungarian submarines, using the naming convention (for example) Austro-Hungarian submarine U-IV. It looks right, makes sense, and gives weight to the argument for German submarine U-20. Sold to this happy shopper. Shem (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Austro-Hungarian analogy sells me on this idea. Unterseeboot is not widely understood among non-German speaking readers, and although U-boat is well known it's better to use full names than abbreviations in article titles. DurovaCharge! 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What do we think about the 'SMS U1/SM U1' proposal for the First World War navies that did use ship prefixes? Or the U1/U-1/U 1 options? Benea (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If the navies used a prefix, the consensus is to use a prefix, so I don't see how WWI U-boats would be any different. As far as the style for the designation as I mentioned above I think the most common style in English is to use a hyphen.
Let me see if I can reconcile the discussion here with current naming consensus:
For German submarines:
  • World War I:
SM U-101 with disambiguation for names shared with Austro-Hungarian submarines, i.e. SM U-101 (Germany)
  • World War II:
German submarine U-101 with disambiguation year for names reused since WWII
For Austro-Hungarian submarines:
SM U-101 with disambiguation for names shared with German submarines, i.e. SM U-101 (Austria-Hungary)
— Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I can live with SM U if that’s the consensus, but I’m unconvinced by it. Having the ships of two different countries under the same designation still seems like a recipe for confusion to me.
And one of my qualms with unterseeboot is that it interferes with searching. “German submarine U-155” has the merit of clarity; I’m not at all sure “SM U 155” does to the casual reader.
Also, what about the UB- and UC- boats? Currently, we have (for example) Unterseeboot B-4, which is plain wrong. In German, AFAIK, the boat would be submarine (unterseeboot) UB 4, and “German submarine UB-4” would reflect that. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As for hyphen or space, most of the books I’ve seen (I think) use a hyphen, as do the pages here. It seems reasonable to go with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The confusion can be easily addressed with suitable disambiguation, such as Belhalla has proposed, and by making it clear in the text. As to the prefixes, we're balancing accuracy with accessibility here. That's why we have 'HMS Ark Royal', rather than 'British aircraft carrier Ark Royal'. As these ships were known by their prefixes, we should include them. And this standardises with how we treat other ships of the same navy in the same period, eg. SMS Blücher. As to the B and C variants, are you suggesting they should be UUB-4? Where I've seen the boats as U-4, the B and Cs have been UB-4 and UC-4. I think Unterseeboot B-4 is actually correct, at least under our current guidelines. The German wikipedia uses the format 'SM UB 18'. I'd therefore suggest the format 'SM UB-4' for the Bs and Cs, which only operated during the First World War, and therefore used the SM prefix discussed above, following Belhalla's suggestion. Benea (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Be[llhall|ne]a's suggestions, including the dash and the disambiguation. I'm not to hot about "SM U-1", as I've never encountered the prefix in the literature before, but I'm ok with it for consistency's sake (and my reading of U-Boot literature is mostly decades in the past). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, we can put it on a disambiguation page, and put a caveat on the page saying it’s a KuK boat not a german one, but how is that easier or more accessible than putting it in the title? Are we so wedded to the use of SM in the titles of all WWI german vessels? I can rationalize using USS or HMS (and HMAS etc) for English-speaking navies on the english language WP; it just makes more sense to me to use a title specifying country, type of vessel, and name/number for non-english speaking navies. (as an example, I found ARA General Belgrano recently; why would “Argentine Cruiser General Belgrano” be so wrong?).
But, as previously, I can go with the consensus; what is the consensus on this? We seem to have 3 of each opinion at the moment.
And no, I’m not suggesting UUB-4; but I am questioning whether these boats ever had the SMU prefix, and if so what form it took. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant put in the title, (also on a disambiguation page of course), I think you misunderstood me. Are you happy to go with 'SM U-101 (Germany)' and 'SM U-101 (Austria-Hungary)' is basically what I'm saying. (The part in brackets is the disambiguation part I was talking about). I think trying to take on the whole issue of ship prefixes is outside the scope of this debate though. Consensus = use ship prefixes. As we can see from Parsecboy's photograph and the German wikipedia, these ships did have, and are correctly referred to with prefixes, and they work along the lines of 'SM U 1', SM U B1', etc (or SM U-1', SM U-B1' if you prefer the dash). Benea (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC, to add to what Benea is saying) We have in the naming conventions the provision that if an official prefix was used, that's what we use (hence, ARA General Belgrano). Surely, it's no problem to create a redirect for Argentine cruiser General Belgrano to allow for users searching under that term to find the article. And as for ease of search, I think the vast majority of those searching for U-boats are just going to type in "U-1" and likely have to go from the dab page. It's unlikely that those who don't already know our naming conventions (surely the majority of the readers) are going to think of searching for "German submarine U-1". As long as there are dabs and redirects, I don't see a problem with using the prefixes.
As for the form, it seems clear to me that the "correct" official way the Germans used was "SM U 1". For our purposes, since the hyphen is more widely used in English-language sources, it would simply be altered to "SM U-1". Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion continued in next-but-one section. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Austro-Hungarian U-boat designations

(I've split the thread again, for this side-step. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

(outdent)What do we do about numbering of the subs listed at List of Austro-Hungarian U-boats? They are all listed with Roman numerals and the few article created (three listed in Category:Submarines of Austria-Hungary) are using Roman numerals. Would the name of Austro-Hungarian submarine U-IV translate to SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary) or would it be SM U-IV? — 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Using roman numerals for A-H boats is a convention by historians to distinguish them from German boats; I don't think the KuK used them. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, the question should be rephrased: Do we use Roman numerals because that's what sources use? Or do we use the Arabic numerals used by the KuK? My understanding of the naming conventions would be that we should use what the ship was actually called (which would mean Arabic numerals). — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, our convention will make us needlessly obscure. If every book on the subject uses roman numerals, even if they are "incorrect", surely that's where people will be looking. Don't our guidelines talk about using commonly accepted terms, to make life easier for everyone? Why not just put a link to the SMS page as explanation, if it's felt neccessary?Xyl 54 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was my point. I'm personally OK with the Roman numerals if that's what most sources use. I agree that they should be referenced on the set index pages. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, time to weigh in on this immense discussion. I must admit to being rather confused as to why Austro-Hungarian submarines are designated using Roman numerals. Most printed sources I have seen use Arabic numerals. All the websites linked to, on for example Austro-Hungarian submarine U-IV page use Arabic numerals. The Austro-Hungarian Navy itself painted large Arabic numerals on the conning towers. I have a fourteen page article on the bulk of A-H submarines from Warship Volume II by Erwin F. Sieche (cited in the GWPDA website) which goes into a fair amount of detail on each of the U-boats, and he uses Arabic numerals (although confusingly, he uses "U-x", "SMS U-x" and "U.x" (x being the unknown quantity of course and not the Roman numeral). I would much prefer keeping the present Austro-Hungarian prefix convention but changing the actual sub numbers to their proper style - i.e. Arabic numerals. I doubt that there will be too many people searching for SM U-x for an A-H sub, that's for sure. My 2 cents. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A belated reply
I hadn’t seen Seiches book; the books I have seen have this usage, and (at least one) this explanation, but obviously that isn’t all of them. For a source, this page says Jane’s gives this explanation and uses roman numerals. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen only one book which I would consider "important" using the Roman Numerals, and that is U-Boats Destroyed by Paul Kemp, which was a pretty good idea when he was listing every single U-Boat sunk in both World Wars, including the KuK ships, and states that the differentiation was for ease of reference. Wikipedia doesn't really have that problem.

As for Jane's, I have the 1914 edition, which specifically uses Arabic numerals for the Austro-Hungarian submarines then in service. I can't help but wonder if when Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I was being put together in the 80s any changes were made, as it doesn't make much sense to make a change, especially when most evidence points to Arabic numerals being used anyway. The book makes no specific statement on the numbering, but just lists italicised Roman numerals. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat designations: SM U? cont.

Here’s my problem with this.
I raised this question because the U-boat pages were using Unterseeboot, which seemed needlessly obscure, and contrary to the format we were using elsewhere. It appears we are all happy with “German submarine U-n for WWII boats, but the sticking point is the WWI boats. My problem with using “SM U- is that it is just as obscure as unterseeboot; it seems like an affectation. I haven’t seen in any of the books I‘ve looked at, and it doesn’t show up on, say, a google search. It may be the correct german usage, or what is on the german WP; this is the english language WP, and should be clear and accessible for people who’s first, or only, language is english. And having to create re-directs all the time to make an obscure system work seems daft. And if I’m going to be doing some (or all!) of the work involved I’d like to feel comfortable about what I’m doing.
So there you have it.Xyl 54 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Also the guideline (which is, I know, ambiguous) says at one point that in the case of ships known only by their hull number, it can be best to spell out the ship type; So are you saying “German submarine U- or UB- or UC- is wrong? Or a worse option? Or what? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But it also says, rather less ambiguously, 'Articles about vessels with a numerical name should be titled like HMS A1, HMS E11, HMS M1 etc.' The early part of this debate established that the 'U-1' part was regarded as a name, rather than a hull number. And it's not really an affectation, but rather a legitimate style used by the navy in question. Calling it 'German submarine U-' or what have you is not wrong, but breaks a more fundamental existing convention. We would have to look at how we title all ships of foreign navies, not just the First World War submarines of Germany and Austria Hungary. SMS Von der Tann, SMS G37, etc. Having submarines as a special case is, as you point out, 'contrary to the format we were using elsewhere'. I don't think there's a consensus that it is an 'obscure system' and I can't see why using redirects is so daft. They're meant to cover as many potential options as possible for those searching for it. As Parsecboy has stated, I think most people coming onto wikipedia, and not understanding naming conventions, aren't going to know to type in 'German submarine U-1', over say 'U-1', 'U 1', 'U.1', 'U1', 'submarine U1'... (repeat ad nauseum). Hence the need for redirects in any situation. And since this is a team effort, it doesn't really depend on what any one person thinks about the work, but the consensus. I'd be happy to take on the reclassification of the First World War boats if you feel uncomfortable about them. Benea (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are that the vast majority of people who are going to be looking for the WWI U-1 are going to simply type in U-1; I don't see "German submarine U-1 (1906)" as being any more likely a search term than "SM U-1". And we all know the MediaWiki search tool sucks, so unless they type in the exact title, they're not going to find anything (for example, searching for "German submarine U-1" returns 0 results) A significant number of these are going to have to be dabbed or already are anyway, so I don't see it as a major problem. In fact, every WWI boat is going to have to have a set index page, as the names were all reused on WWII boats, and in some cases by the post-WWII diesel boats. As for reclassifying the WWI boats, I too would help to move them, as it's one of my areas of interest on Wiki, and as Benea says, it's a team effort. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created a page at User:Bellhalla/German submarine U-90 that shows how one of the U-boat set index pages, for U-90 would look for the sort-of generally agreed upon renaming scheme.
(In the case of some combinations, like U-235, there would need to be differing provisions.)
  • If there were a post WWII U-90 submarine, it would be named similarly to the WWII sub with the appropriate disambiguating year.
Does that look right? Are there any other redirects that ought to be included?
I'd be happy to build a project workpage with all of the possible redirects included for a visual check, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Good work listing out all of the redirects that would be useful to have. Parsecboy (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me as well. Benea (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the present-day U-boats all have pennant numbers associated with them so they ought to be at, for example, German submarine U-33 (S183) rather than German submarine U-33 (2004). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've cobbled together a list of U-boats and suggested redirects at User:Bellhalla/List of U-boats. Please feel free to critique, suggest additions, add missing U-boats, and/or correct disambiguating years (which are supposed to be launch years) as needed. There are only two articles for modern (post-WWII) U-boats. I have already moved and created redirects for them. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s apparent I can’t keep up with this discussion. (It’s actually depressing; I’ve been pecking away at the List of U-boats page for weeks now, and you knock out another one in no time).<br?>
Anyway, I’ve taken the liberty of splitting the discussion, to make life easier, and summarizing the conclusion of the first part, if that’s OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the splitting of the thread. (I de-indented the first few items for easier reading.) By the way, Microsoft Excel and a text editor are great tools for generating long numerical lists. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a question: what are we going to do with Wilhelm Bauer (U-2540)? Leave it as is, and just create the redirects for it? Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say move to German submarine Wilhelm Bauer (currently a redirect) and point all of the redirect permutations to that name. I had just tried moving to that name but it requires an admin to move. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I just moved it to the location you suggested, and after I create the redirects for it, all of the existing articles above U-2321 will be done (that's not all that much though, most of the blue links are redirects to "List of...." articles.) Parsecboy (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

U-boat designations, continued

I'm coming too this discussion far too late, but in my opinion the naming should follow the German conventions, i.e. "SM Unterseeboot U-XXX" in the case of WWI boats ([2]), and "Unterseeboot U-XXX" in the case of WWII ones ([3]), with of course redirects/disambigs as appropriate. And for modern German submarines, how about (for example) "German submarine Y880 (Wilhelm Bauer)" and "German submarine S171 (Hecht)"? Salmanazar (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you say why, please? The reasons for changing are given here. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see why you want the "Unterseeboot" for WW-1 (to complete the otherwise incomplete prefix), but why do you want it for WW-2, and why the change to the English form for modern submarines? I think there is fairly wide agreement for post-WW-1 U-boats (use "German submarine U-X (maybe more inf here)"). I support that. I'm less certain about the best scheme for WW-1, where the "use prefixes if available" schema of WP:SHIPS clashes with WP:ENGLISH, as "SM Unterseeboot" is already a bastardization in German... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I posted in far too much of a rush. Personally, I fully agree with Xyl 54's suggestions re the form "German submarine U-XXX", but I feel it should be used for all German submarines, not just WWII ones; however, a compromise in the case of WWI submarines could be to use "SM submarine U-XXX" instead of "SM unterseeboot U-XXX". I ws trying to make the point that if German style designations are used then they should either be used properly and for all German submarines, or simply not used at all. And I see that I managed to get confused; "German submarine S171 (Hecht)" should have been "Unterseeboot S171 (Hecht)", as an example of a German-style name for a modern boat. Salmanazar (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, the "use prefixes" version would be "SM U-xxx", not "SM unterseeboot U-xxx", as that would be redundant. "SM submarine U-xxx" doesn't make any sense to me. The difference between the WWI boats and the WWII and modern boats is that the former has an official navy prefix, while the latter two groups do not. Hence, why it's in line with naming conventions to use "SM U-xxx", which is congruent with SMS Von der Tann, and "German submarine U-xxx", congruent with German battleship Bismarck. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "SM unterseeboot U-xxx" looks redundant, but as I noted above it is commonly encountered. It translates as "His Majesty's submarine U-xxx", similar to the former Royal Navy "HM submarine name", whereas the translation of "SM U-xxx" would be "His Majesty's U-xxx". It could just as well be argued that the WWII designation "unterseeboot U-xxx" is also redundant since the "U" stands for "Unterseeboot". However, since "SM U-xxx" is also used at times in the German literature I'll stop being pedantic and quit now. Salmanazar (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be an excellent idea to add redirects from the "SM Unterseeboot U-xxx" and "SM Unterseeboot xxx" names. I'll add to the working list. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't comment on this issue earlier as I didn't have a strong opinion either way. This might however be the place to suggest that if Unterseeboot X is no longer the accepted term, might it be worth merging ship disambiguation pages like Unterseeboot 1 into general disambiguation pages like U 1 for ease of navigation? Also, Belhalla well done on creating your list of U-boats, it is an excellent way to approach this problem, but I should point out that the list is missing the small number of Foreign U-Boats that had letter codes, like U-A etc. which should probably be added.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think moving the current set index pages to the new naming style is definitely part of the plan. So, for example, Unterseeboot 1 would move to German submarine U-1. Redirects like U-1, U 1, and U1 would all point to the set index page, and from there, a reader (or editor) can select from the various subs. I was not aware of the Foreign U-Boats, but I'll add them to the list. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the set index is the original U1 page with all possible meanings of the term? If so, would the list of submarines be on that page or on a different linked disambig page called German submarine U-1?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)OK, I see the confusion. I didn't realize that U-1 was already itself a disambiguation page. The set index page that was at Unterseeboot 1 is now at German submarine U-1 and I updated the entry that was already on U-1. In general, if there's a pre-existing dab page (like for U-2, for example) I think it should be handled the same way. If there's not already a dab page at U-nnn, I think it should point to German submarine U-nnn. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies things, thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(Just to let everyone know; I’ve brought the list of U-boats page up to date, from 3008 down to 601.
I’ve cross-checked it with the “Category: U-boats of World War II” category page and filled in the gaps, and I’ve deleted the “unterseeboot red links unless there’s an outside chance of an article being written soon. I’ve also moved any pages I found that still needed moving.
Hope that’s OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've gone ahead and moved the WWI U-boat articles to "SM U, etc, though I was pretty sure we didn't have a consensus on that! Xyl 54 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)/Archive_2&oldid=1079067028"