This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Decoy (H75) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
HMS Decoy (H75) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
HMS Decoy (H75) is part of the C and D class destroyers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-page here
Has anyone got an opinion on this? I came across HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay), which is a form of disambiguation that I've not seen before, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't fit wih our manual of style. I think the convention is to use the most notable version. And I'd lean towards having it as [[HMS Decoy (H75)]], and a redirect from [[HMCS Kootenay (H75)]], as it spent most time with the Royal Navy, and had a particularly notable career with them. It did serve with the Canadians for a short while, and had some notable exploits with them too though, so its not quite clearcut. Or is the title better as it is? Letters on a postcard please, kind regards...-- Benea 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this logic apply with women? Have one article for their maiden name, and a different article for their married name. Or do you recognise that they are the same person, even though they had a change of name?
Surely a history of a ship should be one article? With married women, there is a convention: Mrs Margaret Thatcher (nee Roberts). With ships, if both names are about equally notable, why not quote both in the title?
By the way, it seems very sneaky to have the discussion about changing the article name on this page, instead of having it on the discussion page of the article. This had the effect of excluding people who had the original page on their watch list, and then presenting them with afait accompli.
b.t.w. I will copy this discussion into the discussion page for HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay). It is what should have been done in the first place-- Toddy1 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is utterly absurd. This article started off as a confusing stub covering both HMCS Kootenays, without giving an real information about either. I created proper articles for both and changed the name of the original article to one that reflected both the original and the RNCN name HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay). It was after all the same ship, and its only notable service was in the same war against the same enemy. However, a user decided that this did not fit conventions and changed the name to HMS Decoy[ (H75). Now someone else comes along and splits the article into separate HMS Decoy (H75) and HMCS Kootenay (H75). What next?-- Toddy1 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support merge While
USS Phoenix (CL-46) and
ARA General Belgrano had long, distinguished and quite separate lives, Decoy and Kootenay did not.
Wikipedia:NC-S#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality actually says "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". It then goes on to say "But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship" (my emphasis). The forking offers no real benefits, the the articles should be merged.
Shem (
talk)
20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Decoy (H75). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Decoy (H75). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Decoy (H75) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
HMS Decoy (H75) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
HMS Decoy (H75) is part of the C and D class destroyers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article merged: See old talk-page here
Has anyone got an opinion on this? I came across HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay), which is a form of disambiguation that I've not seen before, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't fit wih our manual of style. I think the convention is to use the most notable version. And I'd lean towards having it as [[HMS Decoy (H75)]], and a redirect from [[HMCS Kootenay (H75)]], as it spent most time with the Royal Navy, and had a particularly notable career with them. It did serve with the Canadians for a short while, and had some notable exploits with them too though, so its not quite clearcut. Or is the title better as it is? Letters on a postcard please, kind regards...-- Benea 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this logic apply with women? Have one article for their maiden name, and a different article for their married name. Or do you recognise that they are the same person, even though they had a change of name?
Surely a history of a ship should be one article? With married women, there is a convention: Mrs Margaret Thatcher (nee Roberts). With ships, if both names are about equally notable, why not quote both in the title?
By the way, it seems very sneaky to have the discussion about changing the article name on this page, instead of having it on the discussion page of the article. This had the effect of excluding people who had the original page on their watch list, and then presenting them with afait accompli.
b.t.w. I will copy this discussion into the discussion page for HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay). It is what should have been done in the first place-- Toddy1 06:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is utterly absurd. This article started off as a confusing stub covering both HMCS Kootenays, without giving an real information about either. I created proper articles for both and changed the name of the original article to one that reflected both the original and the RNCN name HMS Decoy (H75) (later HMCS Kootenay). It was after all the same ship, and its only notable service was in the same war against the same enemy. However, a user decided that this did not fit conventions and changed the name to HMS Decoy[ (H75). Now someone else comes along and splits the article into separate HMS Decoy (H75) and HMCS Kootenay (H75). What next?-- Toddy1 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Support merge While
USS Phoenix (CL-46) and
ARA General Belgrano had long, distinguished and quite separate lives, Decoy and Kootenay did not.
Wikipedia:NC-S#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality actually says "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". It then goes on to say "But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship" (my emphasis). The forking offers no real benefits, the the articles should be merged.
Shem (
talk)
20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Decoy (H75). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Decoy (H75). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)