This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose ships that do not have classes could be documented by year, but we do have a class that makes the ship unambiguous, so, I think a better choice would be HMCS Charlottetown (River class) , which is more likely to be remembered instead of a year, and more like what people would actually call the ship in regular speech (ie. "... the River-class HMCS Charlottetown was based in ..." Additionally, the two years are closely spaced together, easily engendering confusion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in response to 70.29, that is what we have redirects for. Any sort of (___ class) in an article title looks extremely messy to me, and it is common practice to use the launch year as a dab. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the "convention" of using pennant number as disambiguatory suffixes is unsustainable for pre-1948 RN vessels. Unlike the US hull serial number system (where any ship kept its serial number for life, and serial numbers were allocated sequentially), for the British Navy - and many other navies - the pennant number system was open to alteration, often more than once, during a vessel's life; also, the pennant numbers were usually allocated unsequentially, new vessels taking any gap in the numbers that might be unused at the time of allocation. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's a "no brainer". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Disambiguating ships with the same name says "For modern ships, use the ship's hull numbers (hull classification symbols) (for the United States Navy) or pennant numbers (for the Royal Navy and many European and Commonwealth navies) if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known." Clearly the pennant numbers are not sufficiently unique, therefore it should be disambiguated by year of launch. I'm not even sure why you're discussing this, since it's clearly already covered by the Naming Convention! Shem (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.