Talk:USS George M. Neal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS George M. Neal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Requested move 28 March 2019 edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved. Consensus appears to be running in the other direction. Note: expanded rationale per objection of original proposer. As those opposing the move correctly point out, we never disambiguate between names already distinguished by the presence of a patronymic in one that is absent in another. There is no reasonable policy-based rationale for the move. Furthermore, as there are only two articles at issue, with each having a single clear primary topic, the move would either result in a WP:TWODABS violation (creating a disambiguation page listing only two items, of which one is the clear primary topic) or a WP:MALPLACED page, with the undisambiguated title uselessly redirecting to the disambiguated title. The nomination did not make clear which of these situations it would like to see instituted, but as neither is supported by policy, this does not change the outcome. bd2412 T 16:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
USS George M. Neal → USS George M. Neal (DDG-131) – to disambiguate from another ship article with nearly identical namw, (USS George H. McNeal (SP-312)), per WP:SHIPDAB. Thanks - wolf 03:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild and Roman Spinner: No need for the parenthetical qualifier. The existing hatnotes atop each ship's entry are sufficient. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- The hatnotes were only added because the move could not be made at the time. Hatnotes do not preclude disambiguating by inclusion hull codes and as such, are not a sufficient reason to contest. When there are two (or more) ships with same or similar names, then that is when we retain the hull codes, (aka the full names of the ships). Only ships with a unique name have their hull codes removed. There was a bah-zillion KBs worth of discussion on this, over multiple pages, going back almost 5 years (perhaps more), but one only need to look at the list of USN ships to see that this move request is proper and in keeping with guidance, consensus and practice. - wolf 11:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- The dissimilarity between "George M. Neal" and "George H. McNeal" appears to be fairly pronounced. If most or all ships in categories such as Category:Arleigh Burke-class destroyers had parenthetical qualifiers then, of course, this entry should also have one. However, since the main headers of many ship articles do not use qualifiers, there is no need to append one here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you have to highlight the minor difference in bold essentially dismisses your own argument. "George M. Neal" and "George H. McNeal", (or since some may skip the middle initial, simply "George Neal" and "George McNeal"), are similar enough qualify for disambiguation by the addition of their hull code, (and just "Neal (DDG-131)" in this case as "McNeal (SP-312)" already has the hull code added to the title.) You say; "
many ships do not use qualifiers
". It could be "many", but that still only applies ships with unique names. Ships that have the same or similar names have such "qualifiers" because they need them. Look no further than approx. 20 different ships that have had a variation of Washington in their name, as examples. This page is no different. - wolf 16:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that you have to highlight the minor difference in bold essentially dismisses your own argument. "George M. Neal" and "George H. McNeal", (or since some may skip the middle initial, simply "George Neal" and "George McNeal"), are similar enough qualify for disambiguation by the addition of their hull code, (and just "Neal (DDG-131)" in this case as "McNeal (SP-312)" already has the hull code added to the title.) You say; "
- The dissimilarity between "George M. Neal" and "George H. McNeal" appears to be fairly pronounced. If most or all ships in categories such as Category:Arleigh Burke-class destroyers had parenthetical qualifiers then, of course, this entry should also have one. However, since the main headers of many ship articles do not use qualifiers, there is no need to append one here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support move. Reduces possibility of confusion especially for readers of nationalities where if a ship is named after an individual it is common practice to refer to it solely by the family name Lyndaship (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. McNeal and Neal are different enough. Calidum 18:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The names are entirely different, to the point they wouldn't usually even be on the same dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 13:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Entirely" different? Not "sorta'" different, or "kinda'" different but, "entirely" different? "Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff" and "Neal" are "entirely" different. "George Neal" and "George McNeal" are actually quite similar. Some would even say very similar, or perhaps even, virtually identical. (jmho) - wolf 21:56, 8 April 2019 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.