Talk:Chilean ship Lautaro (1818)

Article moved to "Chilean ship Lautaro (1800)"

I am sorry that I moved the article without consult, but I thought, no one would care.

I think the current name of the article fits better to WP:Naming conventions (ships) than Lautaro (1818).

WP:SHIPDAB recommends the launch year as ... the most widely recognisable fact about the ship is its date of launch or construction..

Should be named Windham?. Regarding relative importance I would say that the Windham was less important to Britain than the Lautaro for the Chileans. There are no other ships Windham in the history of UK but there are 7 Chilean ship Lautaros, surely because of the career of the first Lautaro.

Regarding absolute importance, I think both careers are unknown for most of people, although google hits 1.710.000 for "ship Windham" but 2.380.000 for "ship Lautaro". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I take the point. However, I believe that Lautaro (1800) is misleading. If I was looking for the Lautaro and knew that she entered the Chilean Navy in 1818, I might not think to click on Lautaro (1800) as that vessel would clearly not be the one I was looking for. The most logical naming would be Windham (1800), with a redirect at Lautaro (1818). The Windham did have a notable career, being captured twice in actions that have their own articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a deadlock. We could go back to the old name, try to find an agreement under us, call a third opinion or init a RfC. What do you think?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we ask Benea, who has written a lot on Napoleonic Era warships and personalities and who is still currently active on Wikipedia, what he thinks? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't note your message until today. There has been changes in a lot of articles because of wikidata. I think, it is OK, I would like to know his opinion about the issue. We should decide the criteria we will use to decide and the alternative names we can give the article. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have put in a request for comment on Benea's talk page. We will see if he responds. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello both of you. I've had a look, and this is quite a common issue for ships of this period, mostly because of captures. The main thing is to make sure that both halves of the name are consistent, i.e. the particular name format you chose, and the date it entered service under that name. This is occasionally discussed at WP:SHIPS, the last example I could find in the archives was here. In this case you could either have Windham (1800) (or some variant), or Chilean ship Lautaro (1818). The main problem here currently is that you have a misleading name, there was no Chilean frigate named Lautaro in existence in 1800, and there wouldn't be one for nearly two decades. It's an unfortunate situation that because of the necessity of choosing one title, you have to choose a single name. I note that this will affect a number of the early Chilean warships. The Chilean frigate O'Higgins (1816), Chilean corvette Chacabuco (1815), Chilean brigantine Águila (1796) and Chilean ship San Martín (1802). Perhaps you could evade the issue by not using dates where you don't have to - the Lautaro seems to be the only one that actually requires a date disambiguator.

As to which name you use, well there you have me. The Windham did have a fairly notable career, longer than her service in the Chilean Navy, and placing the article there would give you the unambiguous launch date, as well as having the title dating from early part of her service before she became the Lautaro.

But to sum up, I see your options as being either to title it either:

• Windham (1800) (or a variant if this is itself ambiguous)
• or Chilean ship Lautaro (1818)

With redirects from the other title. Benea (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer Windham (1800), but could live with reverting to Chilean ship Lautaro (1818), in either case with redirects as Benea suggests. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chilean ship Lautaro (1818). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709083440/http://www.1812privateers.org/Great%20Britain/marque1793-1815.htm to http://www.1812privateers.org/Great%20Britain/marque1793-1815.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chilean ship Lautaro (1818). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510023533/http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090712/pags/20090712181713.html to http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090712/pags/20090712181713.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)