This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Motor torpedo boat 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On October 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The articles " torpedo boat" and "motor torpedo boat" need sorting out. Please see Talk:Torpedo boat for discussion on merging information on that page with this one. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is about MTBs today??-- 84.129.78.8 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
afaik the 40mm was an Bofors not an Oerlikon-- WerWil 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed that, but found "optionally two 0.5 Vickers MG". AFAIK, Vickers never made a 12.7mm; these would be Brownings, no? Trekphiler 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the Thumbs so small? there is a lot of Space!-- WerWil 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Do this ships really belong to this article? They were several times als big as later MTBs and one can hardly say they were fast. So I guess they are not really well listed here.-- WerWil 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the US called this type of vessel a Patrol Torpedo boat (PT boat...as in PT109)? It seems odd listing the Royal Navy last when I'm sure it originated the term. I doubt it was used by non-English speaking contries, and Canada used it as it followed the pattern of the 'mother' country. Aodhdubh ( talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My dear Dad, Thomas William Lofthouse, served on MTB's with the Polish Flotilla during WW2, and I wish you would include either a Section on these, or at least a link to Wikipedia entry "Polish contribution to World War II" which contains a link to their Veterans organisation. <drlofthouse@tiscali.co.uk> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.43.67 ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The norwegians call this boats Motortorpedobåt. That has the same meaning, but not the same words, only the akronym is the same.-- WerWil ( talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, but the Petropavlovsk was sunk in 1919 by a CMB. While it was in Kronstadt harbour the water was shallow and the superstruktures of the ship remained above the surface. Look here [1] and you will find this:
If you say it was not sunk while not totaly submerged, than you have to claim that German battleship Tirpitz was never sunk or SMS Hindenburg was not sunk a.s.o.-- WerWil ( talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"From the bridge of an MTB showing the aft Bofors gun and MTB 378 at speed astern in the Mediterranean."
This quote is taken from the 'Description' of the second ('MTB in the Meditraneann') picture. Yet I can find no mention of a Bofors gun in the 'armament' sections of the different types or, for that matter, anywhere else in the article. Plenty of Oerlikons but no Bofors. Judging by the picture some MTBs were equipped with Bofors but there is no mention apart from Canadian boats.
RASAM (
talk)
21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt the given an referenced range of this boats. Why should they have less than 1/3 of all other MTBs?-- WerWil ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Per recent catgeorization changes, Is this article about RN MTBs, or about motor torpedo boats in general?
We can justify both articles, although we don't have much on an RN article as yet. If it's on the general type, should this be Motor Torpedo Boat or motor torpedo boat? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Discussion moved to Talk:Motor Gun Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013. All six discussions are in regards to WP:CAPSACRS; best to centralize the discussions so that six separate discussions are not happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Motor Torpedo Boat → Motor torpedo boat – We don't capitalise acronyms when written in full (see WP:CAPSACRS) and we don't capitalise the article names of types of ship (eg destroyer escort, aircraft carrier, river gunboat, torpedo boat, torpedo boat destroyer, and so on). The general guidance at Wikipedia is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". I have also proposed this change at Motor Gun Boat, Motor Launch, Steam Gun Boat and Coastal Motor Boat. Shem ( talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Motor Gun Boat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. ( non-admin closure) qedk ( t 桜 c) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The request to rename this article to Motor torpedo boat has been carried out. |
Motor Torpedo Boat → Motor torpedo boat – Since the previous discussion in 2013, we've had a chance to consider cases such as this one in more depth, seeking sources, if any, that would support the proper name interpretation. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Motor Torpedo Boat, we pretty much find the opposite, that sources don't treat this as a proper name. So it's time to downcase it per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Support I supported the move in 2013, and I support it now. I can think of no possible reason why you'd want to capitalise "motor torpedo boat" but not "battleship", "minesweeper" or "aircraft carrier". The policy at Wikipedia is very clear - the assumption is not to capitalise. Furthermore, I'm a senior Royal Navy officer, and a current commanding officer. I wouldn't capitalise it at work, either, and I would correct staff work that did. So please don't tell me that "the Royal Navy capitalise [such and such a thing]". They don't, and the official guidance (JSP101) follows the same capitalisation theme as Wikipedia - only capitalise when necessary (eg proper nouns). Shem ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
re [2], [3] and [4] "The motor in the designation, referring to the use of either petrol or diesel engines, distinguishes them from the majority of other naval craft of the era"
The first use of "motor torpedo boat" is uncited, but it clearly derives from either the WWI Coastal Motor Boat or Harbour Defence Motor Launch or else the Italian "Motoscafo Armato Silurante". No-one else is calling their early fast boats "motor" anything. Nor are there any diesel boats for a couple of decades. The idea of a diesel MTB isn't even possible until the 1930s and the first high-speed diesel engines (and even after that). So the idea that the name is derived from the use of diesel engines is implausible, and (of course) unsourced.
The first diesel boats are the German Schnellboots (aka E-boats), but these don't get called "motor" anything either.
The first diesel MTBs, under that name, aren't until the 1950s.
We need to stop inventing unsourced fabrications, particularly in the lead. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm. That's weird. How come that didn't post before I made the changes to the article over two hours ago? I just had to "revive" and re-save it now. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 15:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
As to this edit to cap "motor torpedo boat" for the RN type of boat, see This discussion at WT:SHIPS and the RM immediately above refer. MTB (motor torpedo boat) is a type designation that was used by the RN particularly and applied to several designs or classes of boats. Types of ships or boats (eg frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc) are not capitalised. Nor do we capitalise to indicate an initialism. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden rests with the proponent to show that caps a necessary per usage in sources. There is certainly enough in the previous threads to indicate that the requirement for consistent capitaliseation, in this context, is not indicated by the sources. There is also a burden to discuss after the initial revert from the status quo. Perhaps the closer, QEDK, might elaborate on how they assessed the consensus to move. It is likely to save what will essentially be a rehash of the same arguements. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikiuser100, with this
, you reinstated caps to ... the specific designation "Motor Torpedo Boat" is generally used for craft of the
Royal Navy (RN) ...
This matter is specifically the subject of this discussion. As noted above, designation of a type is not usually capped and to be capped, it would have to meet the criteria of
MOS:CAPS. The RM and associated discussion does not support caps in such usage - ie the burden to cap (consistent usage) is not met for that context.
The edit also added (caps to) These were not known as "Motor Torpedo Boats" at the time ...
and ... "PT" stood for "Patrol, Torpedo" ...
which also appears to be a miscapitalisation. Capitalisation for the latter is inconsistent with both the main article (
PT boat) and
Patrol torpedo boat PT-109. See the lead sentence in each.
This
then then adds another instance of "Motor Torpedo Boats"
and caps Motor Torpedo Boat squadrons
. "Motor torpedo boat squadron" (analogous with "destroyer squadron" or similar) would only be capped when used as part of the fuller name of a particular squadron.
As I don't wish to get into an edit war, I would hope you might address these, particularly as this discussion was already open. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Motor Torpedo Boats (or PT boats)defeats the arguement that the term should be capped in reference to the RN boats. It also flys in the face of the just concluded RM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I grasp that you can't "hear" capitals. Ya' think? My point, and argument made, still stands. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 14:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Motor torpedo boat 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On October 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Motor Torpedo Boat to Motor torpedo boat. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The articles " torpedo boat" and "motor torpedo boat" need sorting out. Please see Talk:Torpedo boat for discussion on merging information on that page with this one. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is about MTBs today??-- 84.129.78.8 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
afaik the 40mm was an Bofors not an Oerlikon-- WerWil 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I fixed that, but found "optionally two 0.5 Vickers MG". AFAIK, Vickers never made a 12.7mm; these would be Brownings, no? Trekphiler 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the Thumbs so small? there is a lot of Space!-- WerWil 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Do this ships really belong to this article? They were several times als big as later MTBs and one can hardly say they were fast. So I guess they are not really well listed here.-- WerWil 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the US called this type of vessel a Patrol Torpedo boat (PT boat...as in PT109)? It seems odd listing the Royal Navy last when I'm sure it originated the term. I doubt it was used by non-English speaking contries, and Canada used it as it followed the pattern of the 'mother' country. Aodhdubh ( talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My dear Dad, Thomas William Lofthouse, served on MTB's with the Polish Flotilla during WW2, and I wish you would include either a Section on these, or at least a link to Wikipedia entry "Polish contribution to World War II" which contains a link to their Veterans organisation. <drlofthouse@tiscali.co.uk> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.43.67 ( talk) 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The norwegians call this boats Motortorpedobåt. That has the same meaning, but not the same words, only the akronym is the same.-- WerWil ( talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, but the Petropavlovsk was sunk in 1919 by a CMB. While it was in Kronstadt harbour the water was shallow and the superstruktures of the ship remained above the surface. Look here [1] and you will find this:
If you say it was not sunk while not totaly submerged, than you have to claim that German battleship Tirpitz was never sunk or SMS Hindenburg was not sunk a.s.o.-- WerWil ( talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"From the bridge of an MTB showing the aft Bofors gun and MTB 378 at speed astern in the Mediterranean."
This quote is taken from the 'Description' of the second ('MTB in the Meditraneann') picture. Yet I can find no mention of a Bofors gun in the 'armament' sections of the different types or, for that matter, anywhere else in the article. Plenty of Oerlikons but no Bofors. Judging by the picture some MTBs were equipped with Bofors but there is no mention apart from Canadian boats.
RASAM (
talk)
21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt the given an referenced range of this boats. Why should they have less than 1/3 of all other MTBs?-- WerWil ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Per recent catgeorization changes, Is this article about RN MTBs, or about motor torpedo boats in general?
We can justify both articles, although we don't have much on an RN article as yet. If it's on the general type, should this be Motor Torpedo Boat or motor torpedo boat? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Discussion moved to Talk:Motor Gun Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013. All six discussions are in regards to WP:CAPSACRS; best to centralize the discussions so that six separate discussions are not happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Motor Torpedo Boat → Motor torpedo boat – We don't capitalise acronyms when written in full (see WP:CAPSACRS) and we don't capitalise the article names of types of ship (eg destroyer escort, aircraft carrier, river gunboat, torpedo boat, torpedo boat destroyer, and so on). The general guidance at Wikipedia is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". I have also proposed this change at Motor Gun Boat, Motor Launch, Steam Gun Boat and Coastal Motor Boat. Shem ( talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Motor Gun Boat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. ( non-admin closure) qedk ( t 桜 c) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The request to rename this article to Motor torpedo boat has been carried out. |
Motor Torpedo Boat → Motor torpedo boat – Since the previous discussion in 2013, we've had a chance to consider cases such as this one in more depth, seeking sources, if any, that would support the proper name interpretation. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Motor Torpedo Boat, we pretty much find the opposite, that sources don't treat this as a proper name. So it's time to downcase it per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Support I supported the move in 2013, and I support it now. I can think of no possible reason why you'd want to capitalise "motor torpedo boat" but not "battleship", "minesweeper" or "aircraft carrier". The policy at Wikipedia is very clear - the assumption is not to capitalise. Furthermore, I'm a senior Royal Navy officer, and a current commanding officer. I wouldn't capitalise it at work, either, and I would correct staff work that did. So please don't tell me that "the Royal Navy capitalise [such and such a thing]". They don't, and the official guidance (JSP101) follows the same capitalisation theme as Wikipedia - only capitalise when necessary (eg proper nouns). Shem ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
re [2], [3] and [4] "The motor in the designation, referring to the use of either petrol or diesel engines, distinguishes them from the majority of other naval craft of the era"
The first use of "motor torpedo boat" is uncited, but it clearly derives from either the WWI Coastal Motor Boat or Harbour Defence Motor Launch or else the Italian "Motoscafo Armato Silurante". No-one else is calling their early fast boats "motor" anything. Nor are there any diesel boats for a couple of decades. The idea of a diesel MTB isn't even possible until the 1930s and the first high-speed diesel engines (and even after that). So the idea that the name is derived from the use of diesel engines is implausible, and (of course) unsourced.
The first diesel boats are the German Schnellboots (aka E-boats), but these don't get called "motor" anything either.
The first diesel MTBs, under that name, aren't until the 1950s.
We need to stop inventing unsourced fabrications, particularly in the lead. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm. That's weird. How come that didn't post before I made the changes to the article over two hours ago? I just had to "revive" and re-save it now. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 15:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
As to this edit to cap "motor torpedo boat" for the RN type of boat, see This discussion at WT:SHIPS and the RM immediately above refer. MTB (motor torpedo boat) is a type designation that was used by the RN particularly and applied to several designs or classes of boats. Types of ships or boats (eg frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc) are not capitalised. Nor do we capitalise to indicate an initialism. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden rests with the proponent to show that caps a necessary per usage in sources. There is certainly enough in the previous threads to indicate that the requirement for consistent capitaliseation, in this context, is not indicated by the sources. There is also a burden to discuss after the initial revert from the status quo. Perhaps the closer, QEDK, might elaborate on how they assessed the consensus to move. It is likely to save what will essentially be a rehash of the same arguements. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikiuser100, with this
, you reinstated caps to ... the specific designation "Motor Torpedo Boat" is generally used for craft of the
Royal Navy (RN) ...
This matter is specifically the subject of this discussion. As noted above, designation of a type is not usually capped and to be capped, it would have to meet the criteria of
MOS:CAPS. The RM and associated discussion does not support caps in such usage - ie the burden to cap (consistent usage) is not met for that context.
The edit also added (caps to) These were not known as "Motor Torpedo Boats" at the time ...
and ... "PT" stood for "Patrol, Torpedo" ...
which also appears to be a miscapitalisation. Capitalisation for the latter is inconsistent with both the main article (
PT boat) and
Patrol torpedo boat PT-109. See the lead sentence in each.
This
then then adds another instance of "Motor Torpedo Boats"
and caps Motor Torpedo Boat squadrons
. "Motor torpedo boat squadron" (analogous with "destroyer squadron" or similar) would only be capped when used as part of the fuller name of a particular squadron.
As I don't wish to get into an edit war, I would hope you might address these, particularly as this discussion was already open. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Motor Torpedo Boats (or PT boats)defeats the arguement that the term should be capped in reference to the RN boats. It also flys in the face of the just concluded RM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I grasp that you can't "hear" capitals. Ya' think? My point, and argument made, still stands. Yours, Wikiuser100 ( talk) 14:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)