Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines

Italics naming

Hi all, sorry to be a complete idiot, but despite reading {{Italic title}} and other such policy, I still cannot work out how you get to name an article with ordinary and part italicised text. IE - PS Waverley (1835). You cannot use the apostrophes as wiki-markup, and plenty of articles I have looked at don't have anything that seems to show any templates that helped force the formatting. I don't want to move a page I have created into the mainspace and generally mess things right up. Help? Please? Thanks.The joy of all things (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Umm, there is no article called PS Waverley (1835)? There is PS Waverley (1885) which has correct name formatting. The formatting is done automagically by {{infobox ship begin}}. Most ship articles don't need {{italic title}} or the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word to get the correct title format.

You don't have to move a page ... into ... mainspace to test the formatting. You can 'create' the new article in mainspace using the desired name (PS Waverley (1835)?). Copy the text of your draft article into that and then preview (don't save). This works if you use the wikitext editor; if you are using that abomination that is visual editor then maybe previewing won't work because ve doesn't actually preview...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Trappist the monk, I will do that when I am on the laptop, rather than at the moment as this is on my mobile. Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Section name for list of vessels on class articles

Looking for clarification on the wording of the section for a list of vessels on class articles.

Per the example on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Sample ship class article it just says ==Ships==.

However, on many articles, there is are sections named like...

• "Ships in class" (usually for surface vessels)
• "Boats in class" (usually for subs)
• "Units"
• or even dropping the list into a standard section like "See also"

Which is the preferred section naming to be used for article consistency? — MrDolomite • Talk 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would favour sticking with the guidelines, the addition of "..in class" is unnecessary. However, I would be happy for plain "Boats" for submarines since that seems to be how they are conventionally described. I don't know whether there is some type where "Units" would be more appropriate.

"See also" wouldn't be right as the list is a substantive part of the article subject, not a related subject. I can conceive of an exception where there are subclasses and they are described in the initial paragraphs, and are then listed under the subclass headings insteads of "ships". Davidships (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

How/where/if to include hull-number

There's a dispute at Talk:USS Torsk#Hull Number in Lead Paragraph that seems like it could use some external eyes. DMacks (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This page is watched by 41 editors. You might want to notify WT:SHIPS which is watched by 340 editors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Usage of definite article "the"

There does not appear to be anything here regarding the definitive usage - do or do not - of the definite article "the" aside from using it in the opening paragraph, which states that it should not be used unless it is a part of the ship's name. The Wikipedia page for ship's naming conventions states that "[g]enerally, a definite article is not needed before a ship's name, although its use is not technically wrong". This inconsistency is a major problem across articles and even within the same articles: On Andrea Doria's page, I get 52 results for "the Andrea Doria and 223 overall results for the ship's name. Large articles like Titanic and Lusitania have this the worst, from my reading.
I feel we need some consensus on the usage of the definite article, which I feel is not needed. A ship is a specific thing, not generic – it's much more like a name. I don't think anyone would say "the Joe" or "the Jane", just Joe and Jane.
We, as a community, need to establish a consensus on the usage of the definite article. It is unacceptable to have it vary so wildly between and in articles. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Llammakey (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. As a non-native speaker, I find the use of definite article with the ship's name very awkward. Tupsumato (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. This has been discussed many times, already, ad nauseum. The prevailing consensus was use of the definite article was acceptable. It's handy when describing the bottom of the Queen Mary, as opposed to Queen Mary's bottom. Please look up previous conversations in the archive, before raising again old chestnuts like this. _Broichmore (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Queen Mary's bottom" is completely correct English grammar. I refute your attempts to bring this discussion to a premature close. This is not SHE4SHIPS. Llammakey (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of the definite article is completely normal English. For instance, nobody refers to "the sinking of RMS Titanic"; it's always "the Sinking of the Titanic". Good luck moving that featured article. William Avery (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Contractions are also completely normal English. We do not use those. The question is "is it good grammar"? Llammakey (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It is good grammar if it is used correctly and not if not. From a sample of books on my shelf: if the ship is the object of the sentence then reliable sources tend to use 'the' definite article; if the ship is a subject within a sentence they may omit it. And sometimes it's not entirely clear. But definite articles are never put in front of HMS. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that a guideline is required at all. From a naval perspective, Stephen Roskill, a captain in the Royal Navy and author of the official history of the Royal Navy in the Second World War (before going on to be a distinguished historian in his own right), both used and did not use "the" before a ship's name; mostly the former from what I can see. He doesn't seem to have stuck to the approach outlined by Wiki-Ed above, and it seems to vary with the flow of a sentence. On the other hand, Samuel Eliot Morison, the U.S. Navy's official historian of the Second World War, seems to have omitted the definite article before ship names in his prose. —Simon Harley (Talk). 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I see no need to be prescriptive. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that for cars, Brits tend to use "the" and Americans tend to drop it. Eg Brits would say "The Mustang was released in 1964", while Americans almost always say "Mustang was released in 1964". Ie, Brits treat the name like "wolf" while Americans treat the name like "Fido". So perhaps it is a British vs American thing.  Stepho  talk  23:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Gog: this is indeed a solution in search of a problem. Here are ten examples of the use of the definite article in a ship's name:

1. "Then give three cheers and one cheer more/For the well-bred Captain of the Pinafore" (W. S. Gilbert)
2. "I had decided to try my hand at whaling and was joining a whaling ship called the Pequod" (Herman Melville)
3. "nothing to me but the passengers of the Nautilus" (Jules Verne)
4. Sink the Bismarck (1960 film)
5. Raise the Titanic (1980 film)
6. The Cutty Sark: Last of a Glorious Era (book title)
7. Christopher Jones, Captain of the Mayflower (book title)
8. The Voyage of the Beagle (Charles Darwin)
9. "The Revenge: A Ballad of the Fleet" (Tennyson)
10. "The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory" (W. S. Gilbert)

There is certainly no case for imposing a standard form, in my view. Tim riley talk 07:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that the use of the definite article is beneficial, certainly in some forms of English. Good grammar in BrEng uses the definite article; it doesn't in AmEng, where it tends to be dropped. Given the use is an ENGVAR thing, there is no need for a prescriptive use here that clashes with the wider remit of the MOS. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• We don't need a rule here for "the" in running text. Usage varies and it often sounds more natural to include it. Individual articles can be copy edited if the prose is awkward, but I wouldn't require consistent use or non-use throughout. I'm not sure it's an ENGVAR issue – it doesn't match my experience that Americans drop "the" but it's not something I've paid attention to. Chicago Manual of Style (login required) doesn't explicitly state a rule here, but uses "the" in several example phrases for ships ("the Spirit of St. Louis"; "US United States" or "the United States"). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't need a hard and fast rule - both forms are widely used, sometimes in the same source. What articles should avoid is using the definite article where a prefix is used (i.e. no "the HMS Fred") and of course not adding additional definity articles when already part of the name (i.e. no 'the The Sullivans)Nigel Ish (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Lack of conciseness on Wikipedia wastes bytes; page space; electrical energy; and readers' time. Even if a word is short, and the grammar is correct, it should not be there unless absolutely needed.

George Orwell's third rule of writing is "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". And, while we are about it, his second rule is "Never use a long word where a short one will do". Facile comments about "Queen Mary's bottom" do not alter this. Orwell covered this in his sixth rule: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous". In most cases, "the" before a ship's name is superfluous, so I omit it. In those few cases where it is helpful, I include it.

A rule on this would not be "a solution in search of a problem". On the contrary: putting "the" in front of a ship's name is usually a solution in search of a problem. I agree with those colleagues who argue for us to adopt a rule to this effect. Motacilla (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)