This is the
talk page for discussing
Naming conventions (ships) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Is "QENS" an accepted ship prefix for ships of the Qatari Emiri Navy? It's not listed in the Ship prefix article, but is used in the titles of several QEN ship articles, including QENS Al Fulk (L141) and QENS Al Zubarah (F101). Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw the thread at the top about the use of definite articles, but gained no clarity from it at all and I found little in the conventions guideline that clarified matters either. What is the general advice on whether to use a definite article or not, given that in BrEng is is more common to use "the" in good English than to avoid it. Is there a standing consensus or guideline on whether to use or avoid, or is it left more open than that? Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been editing Zeewijk (1725) - this is the only article on a ship, or anything else, called Zeewijk, and Zeewijk (and Zeewyk) redirect there. Betterkeks moved the page from Zeewijk a few years ago, citing this guideline.
As far as I can see, this guideline only suggests use of a year when other ships by that name actually have articles, not preemptively just because other ships of that name existed?
Any comments, or objections to me moving this back to Zeewijk? TSP ( talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship– in combination with template:ship used to do that, without readers ending up getting confused by ending up on a non-ship page that happens to get added before the ship page. Betterkeks ( talk) 12:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created. Is it really our expectation that every ship should eventually have an article?
Presently the section about ship classes seems to give guidance about how to refer to different ship classes. Could we discuss and, if we agree on something, add more guidance how to choose title for articles about ship classes that may be referred to with more than one name and/or which do not have a well-established class name?
For example, Soviet/Russian ship classes may be referred to by their project number and various PLAN ship classes referred to by "type". Some may also have a Russian or Chinese class name (often but not always after the lead ship), some may have a western (NATO etc.) class/reporting name, some may have both, some may have neither. Sometimes names are used by few sources but not well-established and widely-adopted in WP:RS.
I'd also like to include a line about ship classes with no well-established and widely-adopted class name or any other way to refer to them. While the convention is to refer to the class by the lead ship, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should be the one to coin class names. In the past, enthusiastic editors had a tendency to do this for cruise ships and ferries...
The reason why I'm bringing this up is that I wasn't sure which would be the correct convention to follow with Project 97 icebreakers; see merge and move discussions on the talk page. Tupsumato ( talk) 16:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not proper grammar. How come people have such a hard time convincing others to use the correct pronouns for trans people, but ships automatically get "she"? Thus, I want to start a discussion about defaulting to "it", as a ship is an object, not a woman. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Naming conventions (ships) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Is "QENS" an accepted ship prefix for ships of the Qatari Emiri Navy? It's not listed in the Ship prefix article, but is used in the titles of several QEN ship articles, including QENS Al Fulk (L141) and QENS Al Zubarah (F101). Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw the thread at the top about the use of definite articles, but gained no clarity from it at all and I found little in the conventions guideline that clarified matters either. What is the general advice on whether to use a definite article or not, given that in BrEng is is more common to use "the" in good English than to avoid it. Is there a standing consensus or guideline on whether to use or avoid, or is it left more open than that? Thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been editing Zeewijk (1725) - this is the only article on a ship, or anything else, called Zeewijk, and Zeewijk (and Zeewyk) redirect there. Betterkeks moved the page from Zeewijk a few years ago, citing this guideline.
As far as I can see, this guideline only suggests use of a year when other ships by that name actually have articles, not preemptively just because other ships of that name existed?
Any comments, or objections to me moving this back to Zeewijk? TSP ( talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Make a link from the first mention of each ship in an article, even if Wikipedia does not yet have an article about that ship– in combination with template:ship used to do that, without readers ending up getting confused by ending up on a non-ship page that happens to get added before the ship page. Betterkeks ( talk) 12:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created. Is it really our expectation that every ship should eventually have an article?
Presently the section about ship classes seems to give guidance about how to refer to different ship classes. Could we discuss and, if we agree on something, add more guidance how to choose title for articles about ship classes that may be referred to with more than one name and/or which do not have a well-established class name?
For example, Soviet/Russian ship classes may be referred to by their project number and various PLAN ship classes referred to by "type". Some may also have a Russian or Chinese class name (often but not always after the lead ship), some may have a western (NATO etc.) class/reporting name, some may have both, some may have neither. Sometimes names are used by few sources but not well-established and widely-adopted in WP:RS.
I'd also like to include a line about ship classes with no well-established and widely-adopted class name or any other way to refer to them. While the convention is to refer to the class by the lead ship, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should be the one to coin class names. In the past, enthusiastic editors had a tendency to do this for cruise ships and ferries...
The reason why I'm bringing this up is that I wasn't sure which would be the correct convention to follow with Project 97 icebreakers; see merge and move discussions on the talk page. Tupsumato ( talk) 16:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not proper grammar. How come people have such a hard time convincing others to use the correct pronouns for trans people, but ships automatically get "she"? Thus, I want to start a discussion about defaulting to "it", as a ship is an object, not a woman. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)