Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships): Difference between revisions

Question

What’s the reason as to why ships are italicized?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Tradition, I think. Pick up any book about ships - whether it be highly factual, like Jane's Fighting Ships, or entirely fictional - like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - and you'll see that the ship names are uniformly italicised. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think User:PapiDimmi is referring to Wikipedia practice. I tried to look it up, but could only find discussion about italicizing the article title, not ship names in general. However, a number of other names (e.g. books, movies) are italicized in Wikipedia. I think it's a good practice. Tupsumato (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tupsumato - it can enhance clarity and avoid ambiguities. Davidships (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about using definite articles with ship names

I am copyediting an article that includes ships' names. In this article the name is sometimes preceded by "the" and sometimes not - "the Agincourt" vs just "Agincourt". Is there a preference for one or the other, or is consistency the only rule? I looked through the archives of this page, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus. To be clear - I'm talking about the text of the article, not the title, and not before a prefix like HMS. Leschnei (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Using ship names in articles. Not prohibited except when the definite article would precede a ship prefix (HMS, USS, etc); the stated preference is to avoid use the definite article with ship names.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Using the definite article with ship's name when the ship is not the object of the sentence. For example is it: "The USS Hornet jet passed overhead." or "USS Hornet jet passed overhead."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.17.141 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No prefix after first use; ship names always in italics; in this case because the sentence is not talking about Hornet but is talking about a jet, the definite article may be used. Alternately, the sentence may be rewritten: "Hornet's jet passed overhead."

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree needs apostrophe, but "Hornet's jet passed overhead" only if the ship had a single jet; otherwise perhaps "a jet from USS Hornet passed overhead" or, if there were definitely more than one, "one of USS Hornet's jets passed overhead". Davidships (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No need for the USS. The italics denote that it is the ship were are talking about. so "a jet from Hornet passed overhead or "one of Hornet's jets passed overhead. Llammakey (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been many ships named Hornet and other things take italics also; but in any case, whether any prefix is needed will depend on context and whether this is the first mention. Davidships (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of "the + ship's name" in Star Trek

A discussion is now underway here primarily regarding in universe and/or common naming usage vs wikipedia as an encyclopaedia and this Manual of Style's advice. Over the last few months, I have edited dozens of ship's pages in accordance with the advice/preference given in 4 Using ship names in articles. However, some recent edits to Star Trek ships, in particular to those related to Enterprise, have led to this discussion I mentioned. Just thought I would let you know so that interested persons from here could participate in the discussion there as well. Thanks. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading up on the subject, it would seem that the current MoS is essentially copying current US Navy practice. That practice is certainly not universal. The Bounty and the Titanic, for example, would look strange without their definite articles.

"The official name is RMS Titanic. If Zephyr is the British naval vessel, HMS Zephyr. If you're referring to them, it's common to write the Titanic or the Zephyr." Word Reference forum

"Which sounds better? Ben and Luke saw the Millennium Falcon as they entered the dusty hanger. or Ben and Luke saw Millennium Falcon as they entered the dusty hanger. Change it to Han's Ford pickup and see how it works. Ben and Luke saw the Ford pickup as they entered the dusty hanger. It needs the definite article because you are referring to a specific vehicle." Absolute Write forum

Post #10 has a convincing explanation that shows it depends on whether you are referring to a specific vehicle rather than merely naming the vehicle that is the subject being talked about.

I think as long as US Navy ships are being discussed, the USN Mos can be applied. But for ships outside that context, I think we really should be considering how English is used in a more globalist context. The USN is not the authority on ship names outside its own command.

Ship names: Italicize the first reference to the name of a ship is formal (e.g., the USS Topeka (CLG-8)). All subsequent reference should use an abbreviated form (Topeka). Remember: ships are “she,” countries are “it.” USN War College style guide

ship names Use the definite article the before a ship name, or ship type preceding a ship name. Also use the full name of the ship (without the USS) on second reference. Do not use the personal pronouns she or her. U.S. Sailors wash down the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in the Atlantic Ocean May 15, 2012. The George H.W. Bush was underway on its first deployment. DIMOC style guide (US)

The National Geographic style guide on ship names leaves it freely to the author to choose definite articles.

At least two reasonably official US based style guides clearly allow for the use of the definite article in association with ship names. I suspect the WP MoS is out of step with the world. It certainly seems to require odd word choices at times. Rhialto (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It would seem (as probably occurs within many different Wikipedia pages) that often the widespread application of any given consistent style is often, perhaps, poorly achieved. Given that the millions of articles here are edited by probably a similar number of contributors, it is inevitable that inconsistencies arise (a thing that the MOS as a guideline therefore endeavours to reduce). A quick glance at Ship, for example, reveal inconsistencies of ship article and prefix style within a single page, as also occurs in pages such as Santa Maria (ship), RMS Queen Mary, Endurance (1912 ship), Mary Celeste, RMS Lusitania, and HMS Endeavour. However articles of very famous ships do show a style and usage highly consistent with these guidelines. For example, when doing a Ctrl-F search on Titanic, it is referred to as simply "Titanic" way more often than "the Titanic" (only 2 instances on the entire page). On the Sinking of the RMS Titanic, again there is a prevalent use of the ship's name without "the" (even despite the use of "the" in the article's name). Similarly, HMS Victory is again only referred to as "the Victory" in 2 instances on the entire page. Furthermore, in featured articles from Category:FA-Class Ships articles, USS Arizona (BB-39) has no instances of "the Arizona", German battleship Bismarck has no instances of "the Bismarck", HMAS Melbourne (R21) has no instances of "the Melbourne", and Japanese battleship Yamato has no instances of "the Yamato" to name a few. And yes, while many FA class articles do deal with military ships (perhaps because they are the ones that most excite/enthuse editors to improve them to that level), I would argue that it seems clear that the "best" ship articles already out there in Wikipedia-land consistently do not use "the" in a manner compliant with the naming guidelines on this page. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use wikipedia articles to demonstrate how the definite article is used in the real world, because such articles inevitably tend to follow (or be edited towards following) the manual of style; citing examples from such articles doesn't prove anything in a discussion about how the manual of style should be, because it ends up being a circular argument ("we should keep the existing rule, even if it doesn't reflect actual English language usage in the wild, because articles that have been edited to reflect the existing rule follow it"). When I was looking for examples of real-world usage of the definite article in ship names, I was specifically avoiding wikipedia usage. Your comment about poor editing standards doesn't really apply in this case. In fact, my primary focus was to find real-world manuals of style, which can be reasonably taken to be independent of any influence by Wikipedia. Of those I found that demonstrate an opinion, DIMOC mandates the article and uses it in its examples, the USN War College doesn't specifically call it out either way, but does use it in its examples, and the USN (the guide wikipedia currently imitates) specifically prohibits it. Real-world usage outside of wikipedia uses it quite often (but not always). Whatever the descriptivist grammar usage rule is, it certainly is neither "never use it" nor "always use it". Rhialto (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fast patrol boats / fast attack craft class naming?

@Llammakey:

Re these renames from "fast patrol boat" to "patrol boat":

• Dark-class fast patrol boat
• Brave-class fast patrol boat
• Gay-class fast patrol boat

The Nasty / Tjeld and Bold classes might also be affected.

I can't find the discussion or the cited naming guideline for these renames, but IMHO they should be renamed back as "fast patrol boats". The point is that these weren't merely patrol boats, they were fast patrol boats: a technically distinct class where size and endurance were sacrificed, with the aid of the new gas turbine engines (or ultra-light diesels), in order to achieve a speed faster than anything else on water. The UK classes aren't (and rightly so) even listed in the UK section of patrol boat. These are a notable group, even if the early "fast patrol boat"s were later replaced by the better-known and more specific fast attack craft. "Fast" here isn't just a trivial decoration, it's a defining aspect. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The quote is : "Ship type - The type of ship that comprises the class: aircraft carrier, trawler, frigate, icebreaker. Do not be overly specific in the type"

− And fast patrol boat is an over-specification of patrol boat. Fast Patrol Boat redirects to patrol boat. All of what you just said could be said within the article explaining why they were more powerful than other patrol vessels, however, they remain patrol vessels. Not frigates or icebreakers, etc. Adding an adjective in front of their name doesn't take away from what their job was. I'd lump this in with offshore and inshore patrol vessels. Unnecessary title disambiguation. Just because they're not in a list somewhere doesn't mean they cannot be added later. Llammakey (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're basing all of this on what a Wikipedia article says? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What? I'm basing this off policy. Fast patrol boat redirects to patrol boat. Fast is an adjective, much like "light aircraft carrier" and "inshore patrol vessel". That's over specification in the title. I'm just applying the policy. If you don't like the policy, do a request for comment and seek consensus to change the policy. Llammakey (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

IMHO using a single adjective in the class name is not over-specification; the naval history is full of light cruisers, heavy cruisers and such. What do the reliable sources say in case of these vessels? Tupsumato (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jane's / Conway's describe them as "fast patrol boats". There's quite a bit of coverage of the Bold class in books on early gas turbines - again, describing them as "fast patrol boats" and making a distinction from preceding boats, because the extra power allowed them to be so much faster.

The point of the turbine engines, or the Deltics, is that they produced a boat with the speed of the preceding Gay-class, the "Spitfires of the Sea" or US PT boats, known to be fragile in heavy weather, and combine it with the size and range of a Fairmile.

When missiles developed as an attack weapon, the boats changed to match (see the Komar-class) and became FACs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't use light cruiser. We use cruiser. In the policy it states not to use light aircraft carrier. You are arguing to change the entire policy on the opinion of two people. I don't care one whit either way. But then I'm going to have to go undo the moves for all the inshore and offshore patrol vessels I did, the armoured cruiser, protected cruiser, large destroyers and patrol cutters, etc. Llammakey (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Llammakey - the naming conventions are pretty clear on this. Any changes to the policy ought to be done in a wider venue. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't use light aircraft carrier, true. Well, obviously we do - just not as a qualifier in class names (and so why has "fast patrol boat" thus been removed from the article body text too?).

But we also call some of the helicopter carrier classes here, like the Iwo Jimas, something other than "aircraft carrier", we call them amphibious assault ships, even though they're helicopter-only and don't have any sort of landing dock.

Also would you please stop calling this a "policy". WP:COMMONNAME is a policy, naming conventions are guidelines. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories are not article titles. Yes helicopter carrier. Not helicopter aircraft carrier. Just saying, you want to set a precedence for the "convention". Next time the next offshore patrol vessel or fast patrol cutter article comes along and they say that they have some type of improved engine or gun or stealth technology...well so much for class article convention. Llammakey (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion by BilCat

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this:

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

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

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