Talk:Humber keel

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Humber keel is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sailing Low‑importance

	Humber keel is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Capitalization should be "Humber keel"

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Humber Keel and Sloop Preservation Society uses the following capitalization convention, "Humber keel". Accordingly, I propose moving the title of this article to "Humber keel". HopsonRoad (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Other sources:
Working Boats of Britain, McKee (highly authoritative as invariably cited by other authoritative works) "keel" (e.g. pg 75)
Chatham Directory of Inshore Craft (also published as Inshore Craft, Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles) editors Mannering and Greenhill", "keel" - though hard to extract that from the text as the word is in a title or is the start of a sentence in most instances. (pg 54)
National Historic Fleet, e.g. [1] "keel" (though capitalised in tabular, summary information - which appears simply to be a matter of site style).
Greenwich Maritime Museum, (whose captioning of collection items is, incidentally, not known for a high level of accuracy) [2] also use "keel".

This seems reasonably conclusive. Before reading this post, I did find one local history site that capitalised the word, but cannot find it again. Even if I had found it, it has limited authority as an RS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have now found the dissenting site: [3]. I don't think this alters the position.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic