Talk:Steam gun boat

Untitled

I have substantially expanded this article, but aim to add more later on the evolution of the design, which was largely (but not solely) carried out by Denny, Dunbarton. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of steam gun boats? What? Flapdragon (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it was! It's not quite as idiotic as it seems, since it is an article about the class of naval boats called "Steam Gun Boats", and only peripherally a description of what a steam gun boat is. That's why "Steam Gun Boat" is capitalised. There were steam gun boats that were not Steam Gun Boats (SGBs), that is, didn't belong to the class. All articles about naval classes start that way. An example of a standard naval class article is Flower class corvette. You can see from that, that this article could be be titled "Steam Gun Boat class gun boat", but that would be even more idiotic. Anyway, I've reworded the lead sentence so it reads in a slightly less silly way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your point but surely common sense says you can't define a thing by simply repeating its name without capital letters. It might be in some sense true to say that "The British National Space Centre (BNSC) is the British national space centre", but it doesn't tell me anything I didn't know from the title, if I wanted to find out what a national space centre actually was. (OK, maybe not a great example but you get the general idea.) Instead we have "The British National Space Centre (BNSC) is a British government body that coordinates civil space activities for the UK" which makes sense.

Also, surely an article should explain the most generic meaning of a term before going on to explain that the term also has a more specific reference. The Flower class corvette article doesn't seem at all odd, it's clearly an article about a class of corvette, on the pattern of "the lesser-spotted woodpecker is a type of woodpecker". I'd have expected Steam Gun Boat (SGB) to be part of (or if worthy of a separate article, then at least linked to from) an article called Steam gun boat, along with the other types of steam gun boats that weren't Steam Gun Boats. As a layman I'd never heard the term steam gun boat and certainly didn't expect to find myself reading about a certain specific type of the thing which confusingly enough happened to be called by the same name as the generic thing, which doesn't have an entry of its own.

If you see what I mean...

Flapdragon (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What about an article steam gun boat, beginning something like "A steam gun boat is a type of steam-powered motor gun boat used by the Royal Navy in the first half of the twentieth century" (or whatever), continuing "The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of nine steam gun boats" and linking to the existing article?

Or, if you feel that's too much like having an article called "diesel car" meaning simply any old car with a diesel engine, in other words if you think "steam gun boat" is only a set phrase when it refers to the SGB class, then how about something slightly less odd and more explanatory-sounding such as "The Steam Gun Boat (SGB) was a class of nine gun boats, powered by steam, built from 1940 to 1942" etc? (Not sure about the wording of "during 1940–1942", incidentally.) Flapdragon (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed the lead as you suggested. Btw, the "British National Space Centre" is not a class of British national space centres, so it is not an appropriate comparison, since it belongs to a different logical category. You could, of course, address your concerns about this awkward name to where it belongs, with the British Admiralty, who, circa 1940, were responsible for creating the situation. Anyway, things get worse. The British had another class called the Motor Gun Boat, so you have another problem article. There is already a, rather scrappy, article called gunboat, which discusses steam gun boats, but you could certainly improve. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Aargh! I think this landlubber may be getting into distinctly deep waters here. Thanks for your patience. Flapdragon (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've further edited the lead along the lines of the lead to Motor Gun Boat. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. All the best, Flapdragon (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2013

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 07:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Steam Gun Boat → Steam gun 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 Torpedo Boat, Motor Launch, Motor Gun Boat and Coastal Motor Boat. Shem (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The discussion is on-going at Talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

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 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Steam Gun Boat → Steam gun boat – As per the recent move of Motor Torpedo Boat -> motor torpedo boat and Motor Gun Boat -> motor gunboat. 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. I'd welcome a discussion about the choice between steam gun boat and steam gunboat Shem (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As for the MGBs, and all the others you're going to try and salami-slice away.

Who ever refers to these as "steam gun boats", except the Royal Navy? Who use the specific, and obviously capitalised form "Steam Gun Boat". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• But you oppose everything downcased per WP:MOS. Why is steam gun boat different from motor torpedo boat or motor gun boat? Shem (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's just the same as Motor Gun Boat and I've made the same case there, and at the Ships project, repeatedly. These are terms for quite specific groups of designs, used within the British Royal Navy and not outside that (some overlap into the Commonwealth navies). They are notable groups, just as the Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers were (although not given such nominative names), yet we still have a generic topic for battlecruiser in addition.

Other navies produced a great many designs for 'boats with guns, powered by steam' (se picket boat for the smaller RN examples). If you can make a valid claim for notability of that broad and vague group (which wouldn't be easy, per LISTCRUFT) then maybe an article of steam gunboats awaits. However these Steam Gun Boats probably wouldn't be part of it, as they don't belong there, being 50-100 years later.

Steam Gun Boats were an aberration of ersatz engineering, similar to some of the Liberty ships (are you downcasing those too?). They were gun-armed boats, for a specific purpose, requiring a fairly large size, greater than could be powered by IC motors as the MGBs were. So they used (anachronistically, forty years after this would have made usual sense) a steam plant instead. Hence the name. No other navy built anything like them: 35 knot steam powered vessels of this size, in 1940.

Also, (yet again) MOS has nothing to do with this. MOS does not say that anything should be downcased, i.e. changed from what the sources state. Although here you're actually editing references to change what they state!

This change is no more than, like the others, dogmatic downcasing to a misunderstanding that style rules override sourcing, and from an ignorance of those robust sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You say "dogmatic downcasing"; I say "applying the MOS and following the rules of English grammar". You examples are self defeating - both are proper names followed by lower case ship types (one is a ship name, the other a programme name). Neither support a capitalised "gunboat" (or "gun boat") and "steam" can hardly be said to be anything but a common description, particularly in light of the contrast with "motor". You talk about robust sources, but you offer only assertions. I've done a quick look through Google Books for uses in context, and all I find is lower case "steam gun boat" and "steam gunboat" (eg The Eclipse of the Big Gun, Green Beret, Fast Fighting Boats and Destroyer Captain). Shem (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Which, perhaps not unsurprisingly, shows a source which explicitly refutes your assertion. All of the uses in “Green Beret” for individual ships...i.e, as proper names... show full capitalization. OTC, IF. Qwirkle (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In answer to Andy's "who ever refers to these as 'steam gun boats'," (lowercase), here are some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's to totally misrepresent the point! I was referring to "steam gun boat" (three words, whatever the case) as being a bizarre choice (maybe even an affectation) by the RN to refer to this class, and this class alone, when "gunboat" is the term used elsewhere, even by the RN for their other gunboats, such as the Insect class. Your claim being refuted here is that "steam gun boat" is a Victorian and international generic term. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Steam gunboat instead [see revised position, support for the original proposal, below], which is the much more common form in books; either way, sources generally cap these only when naming particular boats, not the class, and Andy's arguments don't provide any reason why we should cap it either. If there's a smaller class of steam gunboats to distinguish, let's discuss how to do so; capitalization is not the way. And as with the others, we need to fix the lead to be about the boats; the article is not about the term or the acronym. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Here's some more info I found: [5]. It lists "Name of class: Steam gunboat / Designation: Steam Gun Boat". Similarly, it has other capitalized terms that Andy likes under "Designation". I don't think it makes sense to have articles on the designations, but it would be sensible to mention those "designations" as capitalized terms in the articles on the various boat types or classes. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• You did a search, you found the capitalised form in use and therefore that's a reason to not use it? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say don't use it; it's not hard to find in use. But use it for what it is, an RN "designation"; the article should be more about the boats than about that RN designation. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• You're doing a context-free Google search to 'prove' that a 1940s class of Steam Gun Boats should be called "steam gunboats", because that was the most popular term in 1860? Do you still not see how ridiculous your repeated 'proof by Google' is getting? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  If you look closer you see a great burst of both "steam gun boat" and "Steam Gun Boat" in 1946, and again in 1959, but in most years "steam gunboat" dominates, including throughout WWII. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• So for wartime Steam Gun Boats, as distinct from generic Victoriana, there's an increase in use of that capitalisation at just the time they're most likely to be written about. Which you then claim is evidence against it? You're still persisting in cutting your cloth to fit your pre-concieved answer, no matter what your own searches show. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  No, I didn't cite that as evidence against capitalization – just not much evidence in favor. See below for how SGB-9 Grey Goose is referred to in various books and magazines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support downcased and squashy, per Dicklyon's reasoning. And Andy, I see insufficient justification for the British (soon to be English) navy to claim ownership over the item. Why don't you propose a specific article on it? Tony (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a specific article on it. It's not on anything else. It's not on any Victorian gunboats powered by steam, whatever their navy.

The one Steam Gun Boat we really ought to cover (deserves its own article) would be the one that wasn't even powered by steam. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Would that be SGB 9 "Grey Goose"? I notice there's no article for the Bold-class MTBs which follow her yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That one could use an expanded section. There are tons of references to it, which I find refer to it variously with and without caps, with and without space:

• The Denny Steam Gun Boat Grey Goose (SGB-9)
• Grey Goose, a steam gunboat
• Scott's first boat, a duck~punt was called Grey Goose, as was his wartime Steam Gun Boat. 
• British steam gun boat (SGB), ..., Grey Goose (ex- SGB 9)
• Metrovick-engined steam gunboats of the Grey Goose-class
• the former steam gunboat HMS Grey Goose
• the former steam gunboat " Grey Goose "
• Steam Gun Boats (SGBs) ... SGB9 (later Grey Goose)
• H.M.S. Grey Goose. Built as a steam gunboat
• the steam gunboat Grey Goose 
• the gunboat Grey Goose
• The British steam gunboat SGB 9 (later Grey Goose)
• a new Steam Gun Boat ... SGB No. 9, which later on, when the class got names, was called Grey Goose
• the steam gunboats ... SGB 9 Grey Goose
• a Royal Navy gunboat, Grey Goose
• H.M.S. Grey Goose ... the steam gunboat
• The steam gunboat H.M.S. Grey Goose
• in the ex-steam gunboat Grey Goose for the Royal Navy
• the former steam gunboat Grey Goose

• Comment This does seem to be an article about a single class of boats, as opposed to steam-powered gunboats in general. Is there better title it should be at? I think "Steam Gun Boat-class steam gunboat" is a bit unwieldy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  The source I linked above, about Churchill's navy, says "Name of class: Steam gunboat / Designation: Steam Gun Boat". If the article is to be restricted to steam gunboats of the RN with that designation, then some way to indicate that makes sense. Personally, I think it makes more sense to use sections for that degree of restriction, and let the article be about steam gunboats more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• So you want to trash a well-defined article about a small but notable class of WWII boats, just so that you can find an excuse to avoid capitalising a title?

This is what you did at Mobile Launcher Platform, a group of vehicles which are only used by NASA, pretending that it was a generic concept to justify a rename to "mobile launcher platform". Yet again, you're letting stylistic dogma take over from accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of your strong personal feelings on the subject, Andy, there is no reason not to assume good faith. Shem (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• That wears out after a few years of seeing this same tactic across all articles everywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The simplest solution here is just to delete the article, as it is clear that no-one gives a toss about the content, and by the time everybody has finished fighting each other and trying to get each other blocked all there will be left is a title. I thought this was meant to be an encyclopedia - clearly I was wrong.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This a a proper name phrase, and should be treated as such. Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  You're not going to tell us why you think it's a proper name? Do you find it mostly capped in sources, unlike what I found above re the Grey Goose SGB? Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative – If people really love the caps so much and want the article to be about the term, it could be something like this:

Steam Gun Boat is the Royal Navy's designation for their steam gunboats, of which they build nine, during World War II. ...

Don’t poison the well. More importantly, though, if this was what the RN called ‘em, as a class, why would that not be an uncontroversial proper name? And why would a construction that could almost certainly be misinterpreted by some readers - Britain, like the US, Holland, and so forth, still had older steam-powered gunboats, and probably more than 9. Note that your proposal is ambiguous, and could reflect both the inaccurate idea that this was a nomenclature adopted in WWII for boats built earlier, or the factually correct interpretation. Finally, the separation of “gun” and “boat” is useful as well as more accurate historically: these animules were not gunboats in the usual sense, but rather a throwback to the ur-destroyer. Qwirkle (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by poisoning the well. And we've seen no evidence that "this was what the RN called ‘em, as a class". The only class name in a ref under discussion is "steam gunboat". Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• No good option per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. The principle proponent's rational for keeping the present capped title is: It's just the same as Motor Gun Boat and I've made the same case there ... These are terms for quite specific groups of designs, used within the British Royal Navy and not outside that (some overlap into the Commonwealth navies) and Who ever refers to these as "steam gun boats", except the Royal Navy?. The case that was made is that nobody else uses the term and therefore it is specific to this class. Yet, they acknowledge it is/maybe used for Victorian era gunboats powered by steam and capitalisation is necessary for distinction. This arguement is therefore somewhat self-contradicting. Considering the matter in detail, I make the following observations:

• n-Grams do not immediately suggest the capitalised and uncontracted form as the title for the article. A closer review of the sources is necessary.
• per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, if the title is to be retained with caps, the burden is to show that it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Looking at google books titles and titles reported above, there appears to be mixed capitalisation in contexts that are referring to these vessels as a class. [6][7][8][9][10][11] There also appears to be usage of the contracted form (ie gunboat rather than gun boat). The requisite "substantial majority" does not appear to be met for the capitalised form to prevail.
• The issue with extending the sources to include web pages is whether these will meet the requirement of reliability. Many do not appear to be.
• Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS we should not use caps for significance to distinguish something particular from a broader set bearing the same name - ie these steam gun boats from steam powered gun boats more generally. However, such a distinction in article naming is moot at present, since there is not an article for steam powered gun boats more generally.
• The subject does not appear to have extensive coverage in sources. This renders it difficult to determine the WP:COMMONNAME since it is not all that common. There is some assertion that this is what the RN called the class but there is no evidence of same. The sources we have to draw on likely face the same dilemma.
• Asserting that "Steam Gun Boat" is a proper name because it is capitalised is a circular arguement. Capitalisation is not equivalent to being a proper name. The first is a matter of orthography and the second, a matter of grammar. Not all capitalised words or phrases are proper names. WP relies on empirical evidence of usage to support capitalisation of a name and not an a priori determination of what is a proper name. However, "Steam Gun Boat" is descriptive. A significant characteristic of proper names is that they are not descriptive.
• Steam Gunboat is used as a designation for other vessels in other navies.[12][13][14] This causes me to doubt the "Steam Gun Boat" (with or without caps or contracted) is a suitable article title. It contradicts a key assertion for retaining the current name with caps.
• At present, there appear to be no articles similarly named about different steam gun boats that would be in direct conflict with this name.
• SGB is a type designation descriptive of the function and design. Types, such as destroyer or frigate, are not usually capitalised, even when used as part of a class name (eg Type 42 destroyer). The vessels the subject of this article are a single design. This is unlike MTBs and MGBs previously discussed, which were of multiple designs, where a common design usually represents a class of vessel.
• These SGBs were designed by William Denny and Brothers and are at least sometimes refered to as "Denny Steam Gun Boats" (or similar as to caps etc).
• Ship classes are commonly named either for the name of the lead vessel. They are also named for the naming theme, such as the Flower-class corvette. The SGBs adopted names of grey fauna (eg Grey Goose) it might be logical to call it the "Grey-class steam gunboats". However, I am not finding any such use in sources.

I conclude that the evidence does not meet the criteria set in the guidelines for the article title to retain capitalisation. I do not believe though that the uncapitalised form is an adequate name. A name should be selected which is more intuitively about this "class" of vessels. The current name also fails in this respect in that it is used by another navy and is not unique. However, the name that might ultimately be accepted is not immediately apparent, though I have indicated some possibilities. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty much the same issue I brought at the ships project re Motor Launch. If we want to have a more generic article on steam gunboats, and one specific to the Royal Navy's SGBs, then we need a title that makes that distinction; caps don't do it, as caps aren't supported by the sources (see above all the things that SGB-9 was called in sources). I think an easier fix, however, is to put these 9 SGB-designated steam gunboats into a section in steam gunboat, and use other sections to discuss other stream gunboats. What do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

When/if we figure out the better name for this article we can move it there, then steam gun boat/ steam gunboat can cover the general type of gunboats that are steam powered. and these WWII boats will get a mention in the appropriate place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that this article should stand alone as the level of detail here will likely exceed other examples that might populate such a general article. Further, while section headings are a little more forgiving than article titles, we would still need a section title - which is essentially the same problem. The name of the individual boats is easy. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 11 February and 2020 (UTC)

The “problem” here is is entire self-inflicted. A meatbot’s drive for for foolish consistency has foolish results. Qwirkle (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Steam gunboat per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS; the sources do not consistently capitalize this, and it is a general class of vessels, not a proper name. I don't know why we keep having to have these RMs (or, rather, why certain parties keep resisting them with the same arguments that don't work – it's a WP:TE and WP:IDHT problem). Use "gunboat" because it's a well attested word and more common (WP:COMMONNAME) than "gun boat", it is less ambiguous (WP:PRECISE – these are gunboats that are/were steam-powered, not boats with steam guns), and per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

First, this is not a “general class of vessels”, whatever exactly that might mean. It is a very specific class...indeed, a nearly unique class of ships. Next, they ain’t gunboats. Wiki is already burdened with enough false friends without deliberately creating one. The idea that fuddling together these mini-destroyers with the USS Panay or HMS Ladybird is somehow less ambiguous is nonsense.

These are Motor Gun Boats, with the internal combustion- implying “motor replaced by the turbine-implying “steam”. As for IDHT, we can agree to the “what”, if not the “who”. Qwirkle (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No matter how you scope or define the term, the evidence I presented above shows that the use of caps in referring to these 9 SGBs is not all that common. If we want to scope it to the 9 RN SGBs, we need a title that does that. Relying on caps just misleads the reader into thinking this is a proper name, which sources show it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Revising my position – on reviewing the comments and problems, I support the original proposal of Steam gun boat with the space, which somewhat distinguishes the RN class of 9 boats from the more generic steam gunboats. I'm not keen on the minor diff of a space, but at least it's not wrong like the caps. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Steam gunboat per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and lack of ambiguity. I agree with Cinderalla157 that this name is not without its own problems, and if a more suitable name for this class can be found I would support a move there. However, given the choice between Steam Gun Boat, Steam gun boat, and Steam gunboat, since none can be considered a proper name per the many good arguments above, my personal preference is Steam gunboat. I agree that this class is not a "gunboat" per se, but neither is it a "gun boat" (and definitely not a "Gun Boat"). Unfortunately the introduction of a space adds some ambiguity: is it a gun boat powered by steam? Or does it have a steam gun? At the very least "gunboat" is precise, though perhaps it is precisely wrong. CThomas³ (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

  A boat with a steam gun would be a steam-gun boat, so I don't really see any such ambiguity with the space. I'm OK with Steam gunboat, but think that Steam gun boat might be a step toward distinguishing this group of 9 RN boats from steam gunboats more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• "At the very least "gunboat" is precise, though perhaps it is precisely wrong."

Why would you want to rename an article, given that you recognised the new name might well be "precisely wrong"?

This is the problem throughout this: renaming on the basis of style dogma, against accuracy and the outside world. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, "Steam Gun Boat" isn't any more accurate and is less compliant with our policies. I'm all for a better option if one can be found, but given the choice between leaving it where it is and picking a slightly better option, I'd prefer to not let perfect be the enemy of good. CThomas³ (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• But there is clear sourcing (with some variant of case) for "steam gun boat" and yet nothing that describes these particular vessels as "steam gunboat"s. We are not changing the scope of this article to steam gunboat (a good enough topic, but not this one) and we are certainly not doing so because WP:MOS now takes precedence over WP:RS and WP:V. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In my eyes there is little difference between "gun boat" and "gunboat" as a descriptive term. They are both describing a boat with a gun. I (slightly) preferred "gunboat" because I thought it introduced some ambiguity when the word "steam" was added. If the consensus is for "steam gun boat", I'm ultimately okay with that, and I can get behind Dicklyon's reasoning above. CThomas³ (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• How about reading this article, rather than theorising about some other potential article? Or reading the relevant sources, rather than a styleguide? This is not an article on gunboats, or even steam gunboats: it's an article on the Royal Navy's Steam Gun Boats of 1940. Those alone. No other gunboats. Nine boats. No more than that

Now we still have an open question of capitalisation. But "gunboat" in one word here is clearly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that these animules were originally named “Steam Gun Boat (insert number here), with unequivocal capitalization, perhaps the best title would be “Steam Gun Boat class”. Covers both reasonable and unreasonable viewpoints, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can appreciate the need for clear disambiguation from an article at steam gunboat (even though we don't have such article). But disambiguation ought to follow a comma or bracket, so that the pipe trick works. Steam Gun Boat, class, Steam Gun Boat (class) or (IMHO, better) Steam Gun Boat (Royal Navy) or even Steam Gun Boat (Royal Navy class). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• And yet none of the sources I see show use of capitals for the Royal Navy class - eg The Eclipse of the Big Gun, Green Beret, Fast Fighting Boats and Destroyer Captain. So much for "unequivocal capitalization". Shem (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• eg The Eclipse of the Big Gun,

  ...which does not address the early nomenclature of these ships...

  Green Beret]

  Which explicitly does use capitalization for the boats numerical designations... as already discussed above.

  So much for reading the cites, eh? Qwirkle (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That one clearly distinguished between "a steam gun boat, the S.G.B. 5" and "Steam Gun Boat No. 5". Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And? Ship classes are routinely named by using a representative ship’s name, or a common part of their name. Qwirkle (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi Nnadigoodluck, would you please give further detail of how you have assessed the discussion to reach the conclusion that there was "no consensus". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Cinderella157, After a month of this discussion, I didn't see a clear consensus to move to either Steam gun boat or Steam gunboat. If you think that I made a wrong judgement, please take it to move review.—Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck, I am not suggesting that you have made the wrong decision. However, more detailed observations as the closer might enlighten further discussion - how you have weighed the arguements presented to reach your conclusion. "No clear consensus" for the the two options in the OP does not address that there were other possibilities raised or the implications of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS nor does it address the arguements for retaining - further leaving the suggestion of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Steam Gun Boat → Steam gun boat
• Harbour Defence Motor Launch → Harbour defence motor launch
• Coastal Motor Boat → Coastal motor boat

– Case norm: these are not generally treated by sources as proper names. The first two have been lowercase in the articles for a couple of years without complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. These are general classes of vehicles, not proper names. Also to be WP:CONSISTENT with Talk:Motor_torpedo_boat#Requested_move_20_October_2013 and Talk:Motor_gunboat#Requested_move_23_January_2020.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 01:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support – I don't know how these escaped attention. Please downcase per MOSCAPS. Tony (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd like to see shown what changed from the last two move discussions above. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  There was no consensus last time. Let's give it another try. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. We (and English usage in general) don't capitalise "destroyer" or "frigate", and we don't capitalise the elements of "Daring-class destroyer" that are not themselves proper nouns. These articles are still in caps while the rest of the encyclopaedia has moved on years ago. Time to do some housekeeping. Shem (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ngrams suggests they are typically used as proper names; Steam Gun Boat, Harbour Defence Motor Launch, and Coastal Motor Boat BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Those n-grams clearly show that they are not "consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources", which is the threshold in MOS:CAPS. If you'll click through to the books you'll find hits like "Coastal Motor Boat No. 24A", and "HM Coastal Motor Boat 4", the proper names of specific coastal motor boats, and as well as things like "This officer was in command of a coastal motor boat..." and "designed the 55-foot coastal motor boat in 1916", with generic usage. For SGB, things like proper name "Steam Gun Boat 9 HMS Grey Goose", and generic "... her commander, had seen a steam gun boat, the S.G.B.5", "had seen the steam gun boat heading straight into their midst", and "another steam gun-boat, known as 'No. 290,'". Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per the commentary expressed by other supporters above, which are well-founded on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Poster-children for "unnecessary capitalization". Primergrey (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Not proper names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support These are a type of vessel in the same way as destroyer, patrol torpedo boat or naval trawler. They are not proper nouns and the ngram evidence supports this per MOS:CAPS. The issue is somewhat confused because these were not named vessels but known by their hull number prefixed by the initialism for the type. My recollection is that there can be capitalisation when referring to a specific vessel with the type being expanded but shouldn't be when referring to the type generally. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subjective / personal opinion?

In the section headed 'Design', note the line "They resembled a miniature destroyer". This same unattributed comparative description has been used in relation to the unrelated Fairmile Type 'B' Motor Launch - and an objection has been raised with regard to it previously, since form factor and proportions were not similar. Here we see a craft, built of steel and powered by steam turbines, armed with torpedoes and heavily-gunned for its size. A powerful unit by the standards of the branch in which it served. But that broad, flush-decked hull, with extremely prominent degrees of sheer and flare, bears very little resemblance to a destroyer of the RN at the time. Almost all destroyers in European waters - and all British - featured a distinctive raised forecastle, with prominent 'break' down to main deck around the bridge area, which itself was positioned quite well forward of amidships. By contrast, the SGB featured a more centrally-located wheelhouse, bridge & funnel on a hull which - as stated - had a very different form factor & proportions to a destroyer. Is the quoted line actually based on a subjective opinion? 2A00:23C7:312C:2401:45EC:4203:B5DD:9E38 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)