Jump to content

Talk:HMS Decoy (H75)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHMS 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.
Good topic starHMS 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Article merged: See old talk-page here

An odd disambiguation

[edit]
This discussion was found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships on 4 September 2007, and has been copied 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)[reply]

I'd suggest splitting it. It wouldn't be the first ship to have two separate pages due to sale or transfer. Maralia 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure that'd be too helpful in this case. There isn't a huge amount of information for the Canadian ship, and I think in this case the information is better off kept together for the sake of clarity. The others in the class have the history in one article and redirects from the other ship names, i.e HMCS Margaree (H49) with a redirect from HMS Diana (H49). I think this would be the way to go. Benea 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm seems like we've seen opposite precedents, as the USN articles seem to favor splitting if the second career is notable beyond 'sold to x country and renamed y'. If the others in the class are handled that way, of course I can see why you would do choose that method. Decoy does seem the more notable name for the article, as it was in service as such for 10 years, with only 1.5 years as Kootenay. Maralia 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As per our naming conventions, the article should be HMS Decoy (H75) with a redirect placed at HMCS Kootenay (H75) until such time as Kootenay has enough information to merit a fork to its own article. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality for more details on this, and other aspects of article naming. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shift it and create the redirect, as per Kralizec!. ttfn. Benea 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sneaky is my middle name. No wait, its Lionel. But enough about me. I apologise for not posting it to the talk page, but in a number of cases things can get posted to talkpages and are never seen again by anyone else. This was the quickest and easiest way to get some opinions. But thank you for covering the gap. And it was really quite a simple call to make. No the logic doesn't apply to women, yes it does apply to ships, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality which is quite clear on the matter. So it is not in keeping with current manual of style. It would perhaps have been best to have discussed any proposed changes to that convention here, rather than sneakily changing it as you did. It is what should have been done in the first place. No, I don't really mean that but you see how things can be interpreted as sneaky that really weren't meant as such. Lots of love, Benea 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With married women, there is a convention: Mrs Margaret Thatcher (nee Roberts).
Despite the 'real life' convention, you will notice that Margaret Thatcher's article is named Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Thatcher (nee Roberts).
Women, unlike ships, are presumably not sold into other service. Maralia 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Women, unlike ships, don't usually get married 10 times in their life. Personally I think the convention of splitting an article in two (or more) based on a change nationality or name is a bit odd. Taking for instance M/S Wasa Queen, which which I wrote an article without knowing about the naming convention about a year ago. During it's career the ship has sailed under seven different names (plus one trade name) for ten different companies. Three or four of it's incarnations could be considered "notable" to smaller or larger degree. So if we were to follow the naming convention to the letter, that article should be split into at least three different articles, each of them covering one "notable" owner (& name) and a bunch of less notable owners (& names). Which, in my opinion, would make absolutely no sense.
And just to avoid misunderstandings, I don't support quoting several names in the article name. The first/best known (which admittedly can be debatable) should suffice. But personally I don't see the point in splitting an article into several smaller ones if they're all actually about the same ship. -- Kjet 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in this case. After her transfer the ship was the same vessel (i.e. no modifictions), in the same role, on the same side and operating against the same enemies. The only tangible differences were her name and flag. Another article could be written for her Canadian role, but I think it would end up repeating so much information as to be a bit pointless. I think you have to make a judgement in each individual case. Sometimes it's helpful to split, other times it isn't. And if it is to be kept as the one article, then we should definitely follow the manual of style for the name, and not try and cram in all the variations. Or as you say, your M/S Wasa Queen could be M/S Wasa Queen (formerly M/S Bore Star, M/S Silja Star, M/S Orient Express, M/S Club Sea, M/S Eurosun and M/S Orient Sun) Benea 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is following WikiPedia's naming conventions being either "sneaky" or presenting a "fait accompli"? To be honest, I suspect that most of the long-time WikiProject Ships editors probably would not post any talk messages on a pretty straightforward situation like this, because they would just be bold and fix it. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly absurd

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I missed something, but how is this an issue? As I indicated above, when it comes to ships that change name and/or nationality, standard procedure as per Naming conventions (ships) is to fork the article once it reaches sufficient size, which apparently Plasma east (talk · contribs) feels it now meets. Splitting articles like this is not an uncommon task for members of WikiProject Ships. For another example, see USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Decoy_(H75)&oldid=1207575232"