Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships | Guidelines

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 4 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

New to headings?

No importance. Touché! Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of shuffling

I propose to rearrange a couple of bits along the following lines:

  1. Add a new section at the top of this page named "General considerations" or somesuch.
  2. Move the section on the use of the definite article from Naming conventions to this new section
  3. Move "Possessive form of ship's name" to the new section
  4. Move "Pronouns" to the new section.

I guess the motivation is to group general guidelines on language use together on this page. Cheers. HausTalk 04:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

italicization;

I know the general rules for italicization of ship and class names (USS Maine and Ohio-class respectively), but wherefrom are we deriving these styling rules? I'm pretty certain of their correctness, but need to cite something more reliable than "Wikipedia does it". Can anybody point me in the right direction? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Using Determiners for Ship Names

Copied from the original

I would like to propose a standard usage in Wikipedia for all ships' names: that as inanimate objects, and according to traditional English usage, ships' names should be proceeded by a determiner whenever they occur. "The Queen Mary," "The Titanic," "The Bremen," etc. It has been an unfortunate occurrence since Jame's Cameron's "Titanic" that somehow we have begun addressing ships as thinking beings. "Normandie boasts... " "France held...." This recent habit is ridiculous if you think about it. Take a discussion of any inanimate object, say a freeway. Would you ever write: "I-10 is a pleasure to drive. I-10 is made of concrete. Built in 1970, I-10 runs directly to Burbank. I-10 requires 10 million a year in maintenance." Never. Omitting the determiner (or using it only once at the beginning of the article) simply adds a pompous tone to the text, and causes editorial confusion, as names now appear in Wikipedia articles both with and without articles in the same paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doesitbetter (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, the editor wants us to change Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Referring_to_ships and then implement this change across every ship article on wikipedia. They have been edit warring on this issue for a day before eventually deciding to discuss this instead of being blocked for disruptive editing on SS Normandie. -MBK004 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I am against this because it is a slippery slope to having to rehash the she/it debate all over again. The guidelines were clearly written that way for a reason and while each article needs to not change its style internally, each is currently accepted. -MBK004 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. I might also point out that vehicles are often referred to as if they were entities rather than objects, that's why they are given names in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ships are not inanimate objects, they move. Centuries of tradition has referred to ships (as with all machines) in the feminine form in the English speaking world. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This has been discussed most recently (at least that I am aware of) here. Suffice it to say, the MoS allows both ways, but if one style has been chosen, it shouldn't be altered (a la WP:ENGVAR). As a side note, you certainly wouldn't write the I-10 runs..., you most certainly would drop the definite article from that sentence. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe in the UK you would write "the M52 runs from x to y", but in the sense that its a contraction of "the route of the M52 runs from...." That said, the current guideline works and does not need changing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I write either "North Carolina was" or "The battleship North Carolina was ..."; that's a compromise between the style guideline for ships and AP Stylebook, which says on the one hand that Jane's Fighting Ships is the reference of choice for military ships, but OTOH prefers "it" over "she" and prefers definite articles ("the Queen Elizabeth 2" is their example). - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, and I do stress that it is just my opinion, using the definite article before a ship's name is just wrong, for the simple reason that it is a name, and not a thing. Ie, you wouldn't say 'the Fred opened the door,' so by extension 'the Victory fired her guns' doesn't work for me. 'The ship fired her guns' is obviously perfectly fine, in exactly the same way as 'the man opened the door' is. That has always been my take on the issue. Martocticvs (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I hold the same opinion as Martocticvs. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I hold Ed's position on this matter and disagree with the proposed change. To me, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about for other ships, but in regards to Australian warships, I've been told by sailors that it is incorrect to use "the" (as in "the Sydney". The reasoning runs along the lines of: calling the ship Sydney is a convenient shortening of her name (HMAS Sydney) and HMAS is an acronym for "Her Majesty's Australian Ship". "The Her Majesty's Australian Ship Sydney" breaks grammar. "The frigate Sydney..." is alright, because "the" is associated with frigate in that phrase.
It should also be noted that calling a ship by its/her name without using "the" in front has been around for a long time, and was common usage in the days before the film Titanic. -- saberwyn 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Operetta class?

"HMS Pinafore (D987), launched in 1943, was an Operetta-class escort destroyer. She served in World War II, escorting cheese convoys to Archangel. She was coincidentally sunk by U-987 in 1944." Operetta class? Cheese convoys? And what's the coincidence? - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, HMS Pinafore is a pretty famous, intensely silly comic opera by Gilbert and Sullivan, not a real ship. Looks like the original author was having a bit of whimsical fun. HausTalk 05:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Fun alone is fine but not when it's followed by Kursk. East of Borschov 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The coincidence lies in the ship having the pennant number D987 and being sunk by U-987. No terribly funny, but perhaps subtle. Oh, and lighten up, East of Borschov. Shem (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Full stops?

If a ship list is a variation on a traditional DAB then I wonder why periods exist at the end of each individual entry. As per MOS:DABINT, "Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments, with no final punctuation (commas, full stops, semicolons, etc.)."

--Hutcher (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SIA. For example, "A set index article is not a disambiguation page, and need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages..." Cheers. HausTalk 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
See WP:BULLETLIST, "They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end". The examples on the project page read like fragments with the subject leading followed by a comma then a descriptor. All articles using bulleted lists should follow the MoS on lists. --Hutcher (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Index pages, there is no mention about listing ships which have no articles. If they have no articles, then there is no citation or reference that said ship actually existed. Should (a) we not list ships that have no articles, or (b) cite reliable sources on the index page and add a References section with {{reflist}}? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles, set index articles needn't follow all dab-page rules but should follow rules for lists. From that standpoint, red links seem fine. Cheers. HausTalk 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Split

I am short of tagging this with {{cleanup}} because it includes information that is covered by wp:links, how-to advice, manual of style procedures, and help information. This should be split up into relevantly title pages: short pages, but more in number.

Since this is categorized as a style guideline, only the actual rules should be included here. Help information should be written in a how-to guide possibly titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Help.Bernolákovčina (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguator in the lead paragraph

Why do we put the disambiguator in the lead paragraph ("HMS Pinafore (1878) was a Rackstraw-class ...") when WP:MOSBEGIN says "if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text", citing the example "An egg is an ovum produced by ..." rather than "An egg (food) is an ovum produced by ...". I could (just about) understand it for a US ship will a hull number, but for ships disambiguated by year, it makes no sense. Shem (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is correct. There are a lot of articles incorrectly using a year disambiguator in the lead but how could that be fixed? Maybe a bot could do something. Brad (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I fully agree your statement that the MOS is right, but that's not the guidance given at this page - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence, for example. I suggest the first step is to correct our own guidelines before we start a bot running. Shem (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The guideline is correct too. The proper full name for a ship that has a hull number is to include the hull number in the intro. The ships with a year disambiguator only have that disambiguator for our own purposes. The US Navy never had ships with a year as part of their proper name. So USS Congress (1799) has a lead section without the year disambiguator. Brad (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Brad, if you read our guidelines, you'll find they tell us to put the disambiguator in every time, even if the year is the disambiguator - which to my mind needs changing. Shem (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're going to have to specifically point out where it says to include a year disambiguator because I don't see it. Brad (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious one is at the subheading Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Project_template, where it gives the example:

{{otherships|HMS Pinafore}}

'''HMS ''Pinafore'' (1878)''' was a [[Rackstraw class sloop|''Rackstraw''-class]] [[sloop-of-war|sloop]] of the [[Royal Navy]], named after [[pinafore|a frilly apron]]. She was [[ship naming and launching|launched]] on 29&nbsp;December 1878, and [[ship commissioning|commissioned]] on 25&nbsp;May 1879 under the command of Captain Corcoran.
...

{{Rackstraw class sloop}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pinafore (1878)}}
[[Category:Rackstraw class sloops]]

I would also argue that the pennant number is not part of the name, and so the guidance given at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence is not only incorrect, but would lead the uninitiated to assume that where an article is disambiguated by year, that too should be set in bold (as the example later on shows you to do). Shem (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You kept pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence which contains nothing about using the year. As far as changing the guideline to explicitly state that year disambiguators should not be a part of the introductory sentence you will have to present the proposal to milhist and ships for discussion. The two of us can't decide on our own. As for pennant numbers this has been discussed to death at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) and I'll leave it to you to go digging over there. Brad (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to drop the disambiguator in the lead paragraph

We're out of kilter with the rest of Wikipedia in using the disambiguator in the lead paragraph. WP:BEGINNING says that "...if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text". I propose that (except where the disambiguator also forms part of the name - US Ship Hull Numbers, for example) we should fall in line with the MOS. This would mean adjusting Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence to show the example "HMS Pinafore was a Rackstraw-class ..." rather than "HMS Pinafore (1878) was a Rackstraw-class ..." Shem (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally Agree, but need the facility for exceptions. The place to write HMS Leander (1882) is a disambiguation page and similar lists of ships named, for example, HMS Leander. It is not natural English to write in the lead paragraph of an article HMS Leander (1882) was the...

Yes, set index pages have special rules: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Sample_index_page. Shem (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Though please can the guideline allow the exceptions - someone writing about HMS Aetna (1855) and HMS Aetna (1856) would need a disambiguator, though the one commonly used in books that talk about those two vessels is HMS Aetna (i) and HMS Aetna (ii).--Toddy1 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you would need to distinguish between the two vessels, but in the lead paragraph it's better done textually than by using the year as a disambiguator - something like "HMS Aetna was a Aetna-class ironclad floating battery, planned to be launched on 5 May 1855. She caught fire on the slip, launched herself two days early, and was broken up. She was replaced by a lengthened Aetna-class ironclad floating battery, also called Aetna." is so much better than "HMS Aetna (1855) was a Aetna-class ironclad floating battery, planned to be launched on 5 May 1855. She caught fire on the slip, launched herself two days early, and was broken up. She was replaced by a lengthened Aetna-class ironclad floating battery, HMS Aetna (1856)." Neither of the ships were ever called by their year of launch, and that's the point of WP:BEGINNING. Shem (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree to proposal, except where the page is a shipindex page. It does happen that two merchant ships built in the same year carry the same name as each other at some point in their careers. In these cases, further disambiguation is needed, usually by builder. Examples are SS Harmodius (1919), SS Liberty (1918) and SS Paris (1888). Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, as stated above, set index pages have special rules: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Sample_index_page. Shem (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I'm already doing this for RN ships as I see no need to add the pennant number in the first sentence. Any issues should be addressed in the text as per the HMS Aetna example used by Shem1805.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The year disambiguator is our creation so that we can index ships with the same name. It should only apply to the article title. Brad (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


Unless I see any opposition to the idea next week, I'll take it that this is a generally well supported idea. I note incidentally, that it's very hard to find any pre-20th century RN ship articles with the disambiguation date in bold that currently exist, so this will serve to bring the style guide into line with general usage. Shem (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. If editors aren't interested in commenting. This should be an uncontroversial change. Brad (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pennant numbers

It needs to be determined whether or not pennant numbers (not hull numbers) are actually part of the ship name. I supported the guideline change based on removing the year disambiguator but not pennant numbers. Benea would be a good person to ask. Brad (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty clear I thought, and for what it's worth, I would suggest that pennant numbers are plainly not part of a name. I'll ask Benea to drop by. Shem (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Flattering to be asked, though I wouldn't call myself an expert. Pennant numbers aren't generally considered part of the name, the pennant number could be periodically altered without it being considered a change of name, occasionally a ship was renamed, but retained the same pennant number. It's the official and recognisable standard of identification between ships and navies and has been so for decades now, but it is not per se connected to the name of the ship, nor can I think of anything where it's set out that that would be the case. The name of 'HMS Ark Royal (91)' is 'Ark Royal', 'HMS' is a prefix, and '(91)' could be considered the suffix if you like. Usual vocab is that ship 'wears' the pennant number, which like the name pennant harks back to the old system of flag signalling, and that it is not considered 'named' with that number. I'm intrigued to hear that the US hull number system is considered part of the name though, as I say I don't know of anything official in the Royal Navy. Perhaps you might get some people that insist that a ship's full official name is 'HMS Foo (R09)' but that is probably just personal preference on their part. I'd be happy for the date certainly to be dropped from the opening line, as I think is common practice anyway. Benea (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely nowhere on the Royal Navy website can I find any ships named with a pennant number. They are listed at the class pages separately from the name (eg here), but not as part of the name (eg Argyll's page). Conclusive? I'd be interested to hear a case for US hull numbers, but it's way outside my area of expertise. Shem (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see above that I said the only numbers that should be used are pennant numbers - that was a typo, it was supposed to say both hull and pennant numbers. I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue either, but I always use hull numbers for US ships, since I have no refs for UK ships I never write about them, but if I did I would probably use the pennant number because it is still part of the ship's ID even if it isn't formally part of the "name". But I don't have a strong opinion about pennant numbers either way. Otherwise, any type of disambiguator used only to disambiguate articles on Wikipedia should never be used, per MOS. Gatoclass (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gato. I suppose that leaves us at the status quo? Shem (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Definite articles, prefixes

In light of this discussion I propose changing the guideline regarding referring to ships from

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

to

Although grammartically correct, the use of definite article with the ship's name is generally discouraged (for example, "Victory was Nelson's flagship at Trafalgar" instead of "The Victory..."). The definite article should never be used together with a prefix (for example, "MS Oasis of the Seas is the world's largest cruise ship" instead of "The MS Oasis of the Seas...").

Furthermore, in my opinion ship prefixes are a bit overused especially with civilian ships. Therefore I propose changing the wording from

You may give the ship's prefix the first time you introduce the ship, but you should not repeat it on future mentions. You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS" each time).

to

The ship's prefix may be given the first time the ship is introduced, such as in the lead section, but it should not be repeated on future mentions of the ship. The prefix may be omitted if it is obvious from the context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS" each time). As ship names are italicized, common prefixes such as "MS" can usually be left out if there is no need to disambiguate e.g. between a steam ship and a motor vessel of the same name.

These are just early drafts, so if you can come up with better wording, feel free to propose alternatives. Tupsumato (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the definite article part. I don't understand the rest. Allen (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm generally in agreement: I don't really like "the" before a ship name as simply being redundant; however there are occasions when it is useful, particularly when ships carry the name of a person, town, country or similar, as it makes the prose flow better (eg. "Gerald R. Ford went to sea for the first time in 2015" looks odd, even in context). As for the massive overuse and repetition of prefixes, I couldn't agree more. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to say, "the" looks particularly incongruous when placed in front of a foreign ship name (eg "The Gloire" or "The Tamyr"). 79.77.226.51 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This discussion began at WP:Ships and continued with introduction of considerable evidence that the is used by marine professionals and marine historians. There was clearly no consensus for such a change there. Rather than copy the discussion here I link it. Dankarl (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
As a (British) non-expert when it comes to ships, I have to say that for me the definite article is always preferred, and I'd be most upset if it was deemed unacceptable. I also have a feeling that ships that reuse people's/places' names originally must have used 'the' to differentiate them from the original subject, whereas with names that use adjectives, the issue is less important or likely to lead to confusion. But that's just a hunch. Alternatively, there's also the option of deciding like we do with British/US English: whoever started an article on a subject gets to choose the style used. After that it should be adhered to consistently. Just my two pennies :) Malick78 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ship class article names

The question is to have a hyphen or not in the article title. Started a discussion at Talk:America-class amphibious assault ship. I didn't see it in the guideline. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ship dab article names

Ok, I know they aren't technically WP:DAB pages, but what's the correct naming style? Saw a recent move from HMS Hood (disambiguation) to List of ships called HMS Hood and didn't know if this is an isolated thing or a new trend. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That particular article is (or has been) discussed without any clear resolution. It seems that the original poster has abandoned the request without comment. These kinds of consensus continually disappoint and do not reflect well upon the WP:SHIPS community. But thanks for reminding me that the topic is still unresolved. I may go stir the pot a bit and see what happens.
Disambiguating ship articles is described in WP:NC-SHIPS where it also talks a little about index pages. That policy could stand a bit of strengthening.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle honours in set index pages?

User:Anotherclown has reverted my deletion of this section in HMAS Canberra. Four of the honours belong to the first ship, the other to the second, yet they're stuck in the set index page. It also muddies up the navigational aspect. This appears to be the case for a sampling of the Australian ships I checked in Category:Royal Australian Navy ship names. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence why I asked for a consensus first. Not a difficult concept. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to Commonwealth naval battle honours, to use your example, four belong to the first ship, five to the second, four of which are inherited from the previous ship (or ships in other examples). I've found that listing those earned by the ship in the ship's own article, then linking out to the shipindex for the inherited ones is the best way to handle the information without bringing on confusion by listing pre-career (or worse, post-career) honours in the individual "Honours and awards" fields. Some Royal Navy shipindex pages also use this format, see HMS Dragon or HMS Illustrious for examples, although it is not a consistently applied convention. Previous discussions on the issue are here, and here. -- saberwyn 12:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Since individual ships gather individual honours, and the ship name holds all the honours, I think the only suitable place to record battle honours for a particular ship name would be the ship index page. Doesn't that make perfect sense? Shem (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

The Guidelines in this article mention "the commissioning nation" among the important information to include in individual ship articles. I'd like a little more clarification of the proper way to describe a ship's origin. For example, the SS Komagata Maru article currently mentions an owner company "of Japan" in the lead paragraph, and under History expands: "She was launched by Charles Connell and Company of Scotstoun on 13 August 1890[1]" (Connell Co. and Scotstoun have proper links) and goes on to name two German companies which first owned her, with the names the ship bore. But a reader not familiar with Scotstoun and Hamburg might have to dig to find which countries built and owned her, and one unfamiliar with naming conventions might wonder whether to describe the ship as Scots, German, or Japanese. Would this Guideline be the place to find such guidance? If not, could it link to a reference describing international usage? --Egmonster (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles about individual merchant ships: partial linking to ship prefix articles of the boldface reiteration of the title

Quite a lot of the articles about individual merchant ships begin with a lead sentence incorporating a link of the ship prefix part of the boldface reiteration of the title. For example, the article MS Independence of the Seas begins:

"MS Independence of the Seas is a Freedom-class cruise ship operated by ..."

I have recently been removing these links from certain similar articles, because they do not comply with the following passage from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section:

"Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead:

The Babe Ruth Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball (MLB) player with the best performance in the postseason. (Babe Ruth Award)"

The stated rationale for this direction, as set out in a footnote to this passage, is as follows:

Many, but not all, articles repeat the article title in bold face in the first line of the article. Linking the article to itself produces boldface text; this practice is discouraged as page moves will result in a useless circular link through a redirect. Linking part of the bolded text is also discouraged because it changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place.

However, my personal view is that it would probably be desirable for WikiProject Ships to create a special new guideline indicating that in articles about merchant ships (and perhaps also in articles about warships), the linking of the ship prefix in this way is both acceptable and encouraged. I say that because such a link would normally be unobtrusive, and would give readers an easy means of finding out what the relevant ship prefix means.

A related question, assuming that there is to be such a link, is whether it should be to the article Ship prefix, or, as in the quoted passage from MS Independence of the Seas, to the relevant more specific article (in that case, Motor ship). My view is that the former would be preferable, as it would inform a reader following the link about ship prefixes generally, and not just about the particular ship prefix used. However, my view on this question is not a particularly strong preference.

Any comments on these questions? Bahnfrend (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: I think it's unhelpful to neither link nor spell out these ship prefix acronyms anywhere the article, as is the current style. They should at least be linked in the infobox. How is it reasonable to expect people to memorize all of these? -- 109.189.233.109 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Guideline changes (and exceptions) should be proposed at the appropriate guideline page. Changes to P&Gs are project-wide and should have a healthy number of general participants. Primergrey (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Primergrey: What's the appropriate guideline page? What's a P&G? - 109.189.233.109 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. P&Gs are policies and guidelines. The appropriate MOS section is MOS:BOLDAVOID. Primergrey (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Primergrey: But I'm not suggesting the bolded text needs to be linked, requiring a change to MS:BOLDAVOID I'd rather see it spelled out in the lead. If not, the acronym should be spelled out (or linked) in the infobox. For that reason, this is the most appropriate guideline page. - 109.189.233.109 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ship index pages

There has been a small discussion WT:SHIPS about shipindex pages and what they might best be titled. My interest is primarily in merchant ships and I appreciate that for some warships there may well be different situations. My approach is from the point of view of a reader looking for an article for a named ship - the most likely entry in the search box will be that name, unadorned by prefix, and I believe that a reader should be able to find the right article with the fewest possible clicks from the search box and without being sent in the wrong direction. Best then that one of the results in drop-down is a direct link to the shiplist. For example, the only choice with "Ulysses" is the main page (which is fortunately a dab), though when you get there you are faced by links to no fewer than four shiplist pages. The use of SS, MV etc in shiplist titles is unnecessary and can easily send the visitor down the wrong track. Much better would a single Ulysses (ship name) or Ulysses (ships) page, combining at least MV Ulysses and SS Ulysses, if not HMS Ulysses and USS Ulysses as well, in the main menu (or, if for some reason that is not possible, from the dab page).

SHIPMOS is clear in mandating one shiplist ("If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name"). That is wise and well founded as in all cases "Ulysses" is the name. Unfortunately SHIPMOS then continues "Index pages about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by ships of that name". That immediately removes such pages from the name search, and is based on the misconception that there is such a standard prefix; there isn't - in this example there are four and there could easily be more. SHIPMOS hasn't completely lost the plot, as it goes on [my emphasis] "Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought" - very good, except that it then gives an unhelpful example USS Enterprise. I suggest that we consider a single shiplist per name, and that the title begins with the name itself (with redirects from versions with prefixes, where appropriate). Davidships (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support the general principle, but we need to decide on the format of the article title.
Thank you Davidships for bringing this up. I've been giving this some though since the discussion over at WT:SHIPS, and my preference is still for these lists to be in the form "List of ships named Foo", with a second preference for "Foo (ship name)". We can't house these shipindex pages at "Foo (ship)" as that title, under our naming convention, implies a full-rigged ship named Foo. Either way, where there are multiple types of vessel with the same name, putting them all in one place makes sense, with redirects being created from the generic "ship prefix, name, disambiguator" titles. Taking the example of Ulysses mentioned, HMS Ulysses, USS Ulysses, SS Ulysses and MV Ulysses would all redirect to one place. The redirects could be targeted to a section of the shipindex page if desired. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I quickly browsed through the naming conventions but couldn't find anything that would limit "(ship)" to full-rigged ships. In any case, if we have such (unwritten) rule, IMHO it should be changed. However, "(ship name)" sounds like a good disambiguator for ship index — begin the article name with the ship name. Tupsumato (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support as ship indices are definitely needed. As Mjroots said, we need to decide on the format of the article title and perhaps also come up with a standard layout for the disambiguation page itself. Tupsumato (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - List of ships named Foo makes the most sense to me, as even Foo (ship name) might be an article about the origin of Foo as a name for ships and the like (I'm thinking here of now names are treated, as Sean and List of people named Sean, for an example). As noted, the relevant redirects for HMS Foo, SS Foo, etc. will get readers to the correct place. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I am glad that there is some agreement about single/unified lists. But, regarding a standardised page title, I am not at all convinced that "List of..." is the right approach. The prime purpose of a shiplist is to get the reader to the article they want (or inform that there isn't one) as painlessly as possible. So why would we make that difficult by filing all ships under "L"? What readers want, I am sure, is to set off in the right direction when they put the name of the ship in the search box. If, looking for a ship named Foo, I was confronted with an option to choose Foo (ship name), I would head for it (and don't honestly understand Parsecboy's 'might be'). I would head also for Foo (ships), Foo (ships' name) or Foo (ship list), and there may be others. Simple and Useful are my watchwords. Davidships (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: my "might be" - my point is that Foo (ship name) could be an article about the history of "Foo" as a ship name, much the same way that Sean is an article about the history of the name, it's origin, meaning, etc., not a list of people with that name. As to getting readers to where they want to be, I've made this point already in the earlier discussion - that's what redirects are for. No one is going to type in "List of ships named Foo" into the search bar, but then no one is going to type in "Foo (ship names)", either. If someone knows enough to know the prefix, they will try "SS/etc. Foo" and hit a redirect to the index, and if they don't, they'll just type in "Foo", which will take them to the dab page, which will point them to the ship index. Neither format is particularly easier than the other, and List of ships named Foo at least has the benefit of being an obvious title.
As for filing under L, I assume you're talking about categories, but those are already routinely handled (in that not all British ships are filed under H, US ships under U, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with Davidships. I also agree with Tupsumato that there should be a standard layout for the disambiguation pages. I suggest that a template be developed for that purpose. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: – If what we are talking about is ship index pages, why do we not simply title the index page that lists all ships named Foo as Foo (ship index) or Foo (index of ships) or perhaps, as a compromise, Foo (list of ships)? To the reader with little or no experience with Wikipedia's naming conventions, Foo (ship index) identifies the article as an index so when Wikipedia offers it as a suggestion in the search box dropdown list, that new reader will immediately know that here is a index of ships named Foo. Of course it would be best if Wikipedia presented suggested articles in order: primary topic first, disambiguation and index pages next, other articles beginning with 'Foo'. But that is a different topic.

and Question: Is this conversation going to result in a decision or just dwindle away until it is archived? Should this conversation be, or result in, an RfC?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: - Regarding "Foo (ship name)", do we have any articles about ship names? I mean, ships are typically named after something or someone, or follow a shipping company specific naming scheme. I can't think of any ship name which would be notable enough to warrant an article about the name itself... Tupsumato (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

But regardless of whether we actually have such articles, the title "Foo (ship name)" indicates that the topic of the article is the ship name, rather than a list of ships. So I'm thinking "Foo (ship index)" might be the best alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should shiplist pages have a common title style and, if so, what is preferred?

In discussion above, there seems to be consensus that the guidelines should be clarified to clearly recommend a single shiplist page for each ship name, and that there should be a common title style. But no consensus yet on a preferred common title style. Most prefer a title that begins with the ship name then a dab, such as Ulysses (ship name), Ulysses (ship index) or Ulysses (list of ships) (and I would be happy with any of these three), in order to assist searches from the drop-down menu, though a more descriptive title, such as List of ships named Ulysses, has also been proposed. Which is generally preferred? Davidships (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like either of those alternatives, they are too cumbersome IMO and not the kind of phrase anyone will think or be inclined to type. I am in favour of conciseness, so am leaning in favour of "Foo (ship index)" at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

SIA or dab page?

Am I correct in assuming that disambiguation pages on multiple ships should be tagged as Set index pages by default? In that case the following need fixing: BNS Abu Bakar, BNS Ali Haider, BNS Durjoy, BNS Padma, BNS Surma. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You would have been welcome to fix it; but it's been done now (with thanks to Trappist). Rgds, Xyl 54 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes

In a discussion at User talk:Lyndaship/Archive 2#Hatnotes it has become clear that adopting the practice illustrated in the examples on this page may result in hatnotes that contravene the generic guidance at WP:Hatnotes. In order to prevent this, or to justify why an exception is required, I suggest a new section "Hatnotes" under "Individual ship articles":

  • An {{other ships}} hatnote may be used at a page "ABC Foo (1901)" or "ABC Foo (F7)" to direct readers to the "ABC Foo" ship index page, but only if that index page exists. This is because whilst the title "ABC Foo (1901)" is completely unambiguous, it is possible that a reader landing there was looking for a different ship of that name.
  • If the ship ABC Foo (1901) has held another name, e.g. CBA Bar (1909), then instead of using {{other ships}}, use something like {{redirect|CBA Bar (1909)|other ships with the same name|CBA Bar}} ("CBA Bar (1909)" redirects here. For other ships with the same name, see CBA Bar.), but only where there is a redirect "CBA Bar (1909)" to the article, and only when the ship index "CBA Bar" exists.
  • No hatnote should result in a redlink.

I hope this is clear: improvements are very welcome. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm arriving here from the invitation on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. I find the practice of not including links to disambiguation pages if the current page's title is unambiguous to be dubious; the existence of redirects means that any title can be implicitly ambiguous. Or, in short, I have no problem with the first suggestion, though I'd rather that that recommendation be a general-case and not a special-case for ship articles.

    On the second, I have no problem with the core suggestion, but I strongly oppose the wording suggested. Unless it is highly relevant, we should prefer the standard "other uses" (which can be defaulted to by leaving that parameter empty) to "custom" phrases like "other ships", as we may have cases like the hypothetical where "CBA Bar" is also a place that serves alcohol. Moreover, (and this is a pet peeve of mine) we should not include the text "with the same name". "With the same name" is always implicit in a disambiguation hatnote, so the phrase serves only to needlessly lengthen it. Omit needless words. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: {{redirect|CBA Bar (1909)|other uses|CBA Bar}} ("CBA Bar (1909)" redirects here. For other uses, see CBA Bar.) would be fine. I suggested "other ships with the same name" because that's what {{other ships}} uses. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Does it make any difference that a Ship Index page is not a dab page but a list article? Lyndaship (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The omission of red links will suggest to the reader that the ship page he has landed on is the only ship of that name therefore I favour their retention. If the article title matchs the other ship name that should be at the head of the article, if it is about another name which the ship bore at some time in its career then it should be at the relevant section heading in the article. If it is decided that red links should not be in a hatnote then I would favour getting rid of the other ships procedure in toto and make an entry instead in the See also section linking to the index page (providing it exists - no red links in see also) Lyndaship (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm totally across all aspects of this debate, but based on the reversions I have looked at, my comments would be as follows: firstly, I would agree with Shhhnotsoloud that redlinks should not be included in hatnotes. Secondly, I don't think links in hatnotes should be going to disambiguation pages, unless all the ships in that disambiguation page had the same name at some point in their career as the hatnoted article. Thirdly, I have no problem with ships of different names being linked in the "other ships" template, provided of course that the other ships so linked carried the same name as the hatnoted article at some point in her career. Finally, I would be opposed to the removal of the phrase "with the same name"; the template would I think be completely mystifying in its purpose to the average reader without those words of explanation. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add, in relation to the comment by Lyndaship above, that I don't think hatnotes should be going to article sections, I think it's best to have them at the top of the article, regardless of whether the hatnoted names are different from that of the article. It means the reader can see right away that there are other ships with the same name, so that if he's inadvertently come to the wrong article he can find the right one straight away. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a valid point but when I was just a user as opposed to an editor I used to be very surprised when I selected a ship name from the search engine for say HMS Foo(19xx) and found myself at the top of a page for USS Something. If the redirect for an alternative name is set up to the relevant section then theres no surprise and if theres another HMS Foo its readily apparent Lyndaship (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. There being no fundamental objections, I've implemented the change. There is no absolute agreement about detailed wording, with opinions for and against using "other ships with the same name" (as used in {{other ships}}), so I'll proceed with my wording, and allow the normal editing process to occur if editors wish to change it. Thanks to those who expressed opinions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

and undone - no consensus has been established to change Lyndaship (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: Well this is tiresome. A week has passed; I shall await further input... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree with the original proposal

  • On 'other ships' worth noting that the destination may not be a ship index page, it may be a dab (there are lots of these where there are a handful of ships covered and no ship index page has been created); and of course if there are only two ships of the same name, a conventional hatnote leading to the other is correct.
  • For redirects, I would favour hatnotes at the top, which is where shipname redirects should normally be pointed (in most cases the redirected name should appear in the Lead and infobox which where readers normally start on landing. This seems to cover the case raised by {{redirect|CBA Bar (1909)|other ships with the same name|CBA Bar|other uses|CBA Bar (disambiguation)}}, or a more specific pointer if no dab. Both the additional points above apply to redirects
  • Agree that red links should be avoided. Add "If there is more than one other ship of this name please consider creating a ship index page". Davidships (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify when you say avoided the proposal is that redlinks would not be allowed in the other ships hatnote at all so even if other ships of the same name existed until someone created the SI page there would be no indication that the reader might be looking at the wrong ship. Are you ok with that? Lyndaship (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there might be multiple ship articles for the same ship name which are on neither a SI or a dab. Of course editors may be aware of further ships, but unless they are included in a ship list or dab, then there is nothing verifiable. If a ship list is required then it should be created there and then (if it is started with just ships that have articles, it doesn't usually require any additional research or sourcing). So, I'll be clearer - no redlinked hatnotes.Davidships (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
As I think it is unlikely that any other editors will comment and that everyone who has contributed supports no red links I will withdraw my opposition to this part of the proposed change. I favour Davidships proposal re the second part Lyndaship (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you to everyone who offered comments and improvements, and I hope I have incorporated those which achieved consensus. Improvements to the text in the guideline are still welcome, of course. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines/Archive_1&oldid=1137365401"