Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Motor torpedo boat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Torpedo boat

[edit]

The articles "torpedo boat" and "motor torpedo boat" need sorting out. Please see Talk:Torpedo boat for discussion on merging information on that page with this one. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is about MTBs today??--84.129.78.8 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons

[edit]

afaik the 40mm was an Bofors not an Oerlikon--WerWil 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that, but found "optionally two 0.5 Vickers MG". AFAIK, Vickers never made a 12.7mm; these would be Brownings, no? Trekphiler 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers .50 machine gun - a standard RN weapon of WWII, particularly in the Mk III, often as a quad mounting. Shem (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, deja vu. :D Thx. Dr Leonard McCoy I'm a doctor, not a phonebooth 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you mean, but I assume it's a good thing ... Shem (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Why the Thumbs so small? there is a lot of Space!--WerWil 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Thumbnail - "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference." Shem (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Class

[edit]

Do this ships really belong to this article? They were several times als big as later MTBs and one can hardly say they were fast. So I guess they are not really well listed here.--WerWil 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've deleted the paragraph. It contained at least two errors. The HMS Cricket launched in 1905 or 1906 was a Cricket class coastal destroyer, whereas the Cricket launched in 1915 was a different type of warship, an Insect class river gunboat or "China gunboat" intended specifically for rivers, with shallow draught, heavy guns, no torpedoes and powerful engines. Secondly, an "MTB" is different to a "torpedoboat", perhaps not in purpose, but certainly in concept (smaller, faster, differently powered), IMO. I would say that MTB = MAS = E-boat and "torpedoboats" tended to be more small destroyers - see German torpedoboats of World War II. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US MTB?

[edit]

I thought the US called this type of vessel a Patrol Torpedo boat (PT boat...as in PT109)? It seems odd listing the Royal Navy last when I'm sure it originated the term. I doubt it was used by non-English speaking contries, and Canada used it as it followed the pattern of the 'mother' country. Aodhdubh (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Flotilla - Coastal Forces in WW2

[edit]

My dear Dad, Thomas William Lofthouse, served on MTB's with the Polish Flotilla during WW2, and I wish you would include either a Section on these, or at least a link to Wikipedia entry "Polish contribution to World War II" which contains a link to their Veterans organisation. <drlofthouse@tiscali.co.uk> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.43.67 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in first sentence

[edit]

The norwegians call this boats Motortorpedobåt. That has the same meaning, but not the same words, only the akronym is the same.--WerWil (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further doubts

[edit]

first or only

[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war, but the Petropavlovsk was sunk in 1919 by a CMB. While it was in Kronstadt harbour the water was shallow and the superstruktures of the ship remained above the surface. Look here [1] and you will find this:

August 17th/18th
... Accounts vary, but both Dobson's 'CMB-31' and Steele's 'CMB-88' appear to have made one hit
each on the two biggest ships. Dreadnought 'PETROPAVLOSK' (1914, 24,000t, 12-12in) sinks in
shallow water and is salvaged later, and pre-dreadnought 'Andrei Pervozvanny' (1908, 17,400t,
4-12in) seriously damaged.

If you say it was not sunk while not totaly submerged, than you have to claim that German battleship Tirpitz was never sunk or SMS Hindenburg was not sunk a.s.o.--WerWil (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A ship sunk in a shallow harbour and on an even keel is usually able to be re-floated without too much effort, however if it turns turtle it is effectively good only for scrap. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant were both 'sunk' but were quickly re-floated.
BTW, generally a ship is only classed as 'sunk' if the water is up over the main deck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bofors gun

[edit]

"From the bridge of an MTB showing the aft Bofors gun and MTB 378 at speed astern in the Mediterranean."
This quote is taken from the 'Description' of the second ('MTB in the Meditraneann') picture. Yet I can find no mention of a Bofors gun in the 'armament' sections of the different types or, for that matter, anywhere else in the article. Plenty of Oerlikons but no Bofors. Judging by the picture some MTBs were equipped with Bofors but there is no mention apart from Canadian boats.
RASAM (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this photograph in a book, where it was said, that the Boat from which this Photo was taken, were a 78 foot Higgins MTB of us-production, fittet whith a Bofors-gun build in licence in canada. BTW the boat following thereafter is a vosper-design but build in the US.--WerWil (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RCN MTB

[edit]

I doubt the given an referenced range of this boats. Why should they have less than 1/3 of all other MTBs?--WerWil (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and rename?

[edit]

Per recent catgeorization changes, Is this article about RN MTBs, or about motor torpedo boats in general?

We can justify both articles, although we don't have much on an RN article as yet. If it's on the general type, should this be Motor Torpedo Boat or motor torpedo boat? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 20 October 2013

[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. 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) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Survey

[edit]
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.
No, "pt boat" is not next. Wikipedia doesn't capitalise "official designators". This discussion is being conducted largely at talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this discussion should have been held in a more frequented place such as the WP:MilHist or WP:Ships talk pages? I've just thought of a few similar cases: Sea Control Ship, Aircraft Carrier (Medium), VSTOL Support Ship, Landing Craft Air Cushion etc. And other terms such as Fleet Landing Exercises. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, feel free to place a note at WP:MilHist & WP:Ships. I had thought of it mainly from a grammar front and placed notices at Talk:MOSCAPS and Talk:MOS. There are indeed a large number of over-capitalised names out there, and not just ship-related ones. Most of them are backwards capitalisations from the acronym, in my ever-so-humble opinion - and at Wikipedia we don't do that. Shem (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to do with OR. WP:OR says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." This is about style and MOS. This discussion is being conducted at Talk:Motor Gun Boat. Shem (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
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

[edit]

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 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 January 2020

[edit]
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. There is a consensus for this requested move. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Torpedo Boat → Motor torpedo boat – 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. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: per nom. See discussion at WP:SHIPS. This is a type of vessel much like "destroyer" and "battleship" are types. The article does not even refer to one specific design. It certainly isn't necessary capitalisation. While the term may be cappitalised in sources closely associated with the military (see WP:SSF) there is no evidence proffered that would support capitalisation per the guidelines MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If all the designs are given the same (capitalised form of the) name, does that make it a generic term? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, per this post at WP:SHIPS, Type 23 frigate refers to the class but we might rewrite this as the Type 23 class of frigate. MTB is, a priori, not a proper name, since it is descriptive. MTB is a ship (boat) type. Capitalising for emphasis or to distinguish these MTBs from others would be precluded per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The difference between generic and specific is not equivalent to the difference between an appelative (common noun) and a proper noun. Further, within the article, we have Vosper Type 1 motor torpedo boat and the Scott-Paine type G. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead opens, "was the name given to fast torpedo boats by the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy." For which narrow and specific context, those navies' own terminology for specific classes, the capitalisation is correct. Same as the others: CMB, HDML, HSL, ML, SGB etc.
    In the linked discussion, I brought up that change to the lead; it's a malformed attempt to make the caps OK by making the article about the RN term, rather than about the boats as would be normal. Yes, we'll need to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article is about the RN MTBs, with only a passing mention of others such as the Germans, and the omission of the US PT boats. There's no reason we can't have something on torpedo boats internationally, but we still ought to cover the related RN classes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When are you going after Landing Ship, Tank, or Landing Craft Air Cushion? Or, as predominantly US vessels, do you think the audience will be larger than for British little ships, and so you'll be opposed? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to predict. Not really relevant here. Generally, I think these odd military designators are not good article titles, and are not consistent even with COMMONNAME. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Not really relevant here." So your inviolable dogma only applies when you think you can get away with it? Noted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported the move in 2013, and I support it now. I can think of no possible reason why you'd want to capitalise "motor torpedo boat" but not "battleship", "minesweeper" or "aircraft carrier". The policy at Wikipedia is very clear - the assumption is not to capitalise. Furthermore, I'm a senior Royal Navy officer, and a current commanding officer. I wouldn't capitalise it at work, either, and I would correct staff work that did. So please don't tell me that "the Royal Navy capitalise [such and such a thing]". They don't, and the official guidance (JSP101) follows the same capitalisation theme as Wikipedia - only capitalise when necessary (eg proper nouns). Shem (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Capitalisation_(yet_again)? There is a lot of forumshopping going on here.
The discussions are cross-notified. Is this in some way problematic, following up a general discussion with a specific move request? Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying "aircraft carrier" should be capitalised. Or even that "motor torpedo boat" should be capitalised. But the point is that some specific classes (not types) have been capitalised in RN service. MTB (the RN ones) was just one of them. But so is Landing Ship, Tank, so is High Speed Launch (which still doesn't invalidate high-speed launch as a group), so was Coastal Motor Boat. These are sourced (see the project) from the RN and from the central heritage groups, such as National Historic Ships. But Dicklyon just wants to remove all capitals from WP, everywhere, no matter what, and will never stop advocating this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you'd quit mis-characterizing my work to move toward compliance with our MOS as something it's not. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, most of the articles I have created have capitalized title words, since the titles are proper names. I'm working on cases that are not that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThoughtIdRetired, for the Hunt class, hunt is not descriptive of the function or purpose of the vessels in the class and is a priori meeting that requisite of a proper name. Destroyer is not capped in the article title. Furthermore, the sources are meeting the criteria set by the guidelines to support capping. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is when a name that is used by the RN as a proper name also happens to qualify as a descriptive name. This is a bit like me calling my cat "Fluffy" (because it is), rather than "George" (which is obviously a proper name). I think we are better guided by sources, where we find, for motor torpedo boat/Motor Torpedo Boat a confusing mix of the two. Generally I strongly advocate a decision based on the sources used in the article, though I acknowledge that in this instance, using that approach is not much use. However, for other cases, that is less of a problem.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your comment as to why the Hunt class might be considered a proper name and capitalised - see proper name. Incidentally, capitalisation and being a proper name are not mutually inclusive sets. One is grammatical, the other is othographic. Your cat could be a sphynx cat called "Fluffy" and if your fluffy cat was shaved, it would still be called "Fluffy". However, as you observe though, WP relies on empirical evidence. A "confusing mix of the two", as you observe, means that the criteria of the guidelines has not been met. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThoughtIdRetired, in your long comment at the discussion about sources, you conclude that "Overall uncapitalised usage appears to be more common, but caps are definitely used by some." Would you then be willing to change your neutral comment to support this move proposal, in light of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS? Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon - thinking this through, the best I can do is remain neutral on the subject. This balances:
(a) my researches of sources available to me, which show a mix of caps and non-caps (with non-caps being more common for motor torpedo boat), with some instances appearing to be where the writer gives a nuance of different meaning when capitalising,
with: (b) my view that Wikipedia should allow some flexibility on capitalisation where doing so makes things clearer to the encyclopedia user; I accept that this goes against the manual of style, and am not immersed sufficiently in all the "ifs and buts" of the arguments on that point to discuss that further - I am simply giving my view. Seeing how things are going, I do not think the proposal desperately needs my support - and I will live with the outcome. (I note in passing that looking at this discussion has revealed that Motor Gun Boat is a seriously deficient article - fixing that is more my sort of editing, if I have time and the sources - no disrespect intended to those in this discussion.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per discussion and then per this n-gram. I've spent the last 25 minutes or so reading the discussion here and on the other pages, seeing if there was a good reason to oppose this, as it does "look better" in upper case. But upper case doesn't hold up as the common name, there is not an exceptionally good reason to WP:IGNORE the rules on this one and make an exception, and finally, Shem makes a convincing inside-baseball case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Sources are nowhere near consistent in capitalizing this, and it's pretty much by definition a common-noun phrase, not a proper-noun one (it's a general class of boats). This is yet another cases of WP:SSF, in particular of "capitalize it just because it's military and the military loves to capitalize things", a.k.a. officialese, an artificial dialect in which WP is definitely not written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not "a general class of boats". This is clearer perhaps for the Motor Gun Boat or High Speed Launch types, but whilst there is a general class of boats under motor torpedo boat, there's also this narrow group for the RN Motor Torpedo Boats, same as there is for the US Patrol Torpedo boats and the German E-boats. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Andy, this is the question I was trying to get input on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Motor Launch. If this articles are intended to be about a narrow class of RN boat, then we ought to have sources that clearly define that class, and we ought to use something other than title caps to distinguish that topic from the generic. Motor launch versus Motor Launch really doesn't do it, and the articles don't really clearly define their topics with sources. If we have the sources, let's see them, and even if we decide caps are right for those, let's come up with titles perhaps like Motor Launch (RN boat type) or something that disambiguates the specific from the generic. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And Andy's argument doesn't magically make this a proper name anyway, just a smaller general vessels that possibly needs a disambiguator. It's a completely terrible idea to have motor torpedo boat and Motor Torpedo Boat go to different pages, since we know for a fact that capitalization habits vary, and run across-the-board towards over-capitalization when it comes to military geekery when written about by military geeks for other military geeks (WP:SSF). That completely fails WP:DIFFCAPS. However, if Andy simply means "there are motorized boats with torpedos and I like to call them motor torpedo boats, ergo this article about RN/RCN ones cannot be lower-case and instead has transmogrified into a proper name" that doesn't logically track, either. We have no evidence that RS use the term "motor torpedo boat" as a general classifier for all motorized boats with torpedoes, only for this particular cluster of them (British ones and now Canadian ones by terminological inheritance after Canadian mostly-independence). If the sources really do use that term more generally, then we need a scope change in the article to do so as well, with specific sections on UK and Canadian MTBs, instead of pretending they are the only MTBs. (Or, given enough mateiral, separate articles, like "Motoro torpedo boat (Royal Navy)", etc.). There basically is no way to get around this with contorted "capitalize for signification" arguments (see MOS:SIGNIFCAPS); nor with pointedly aspersion-casting and "go after DickLyon in particular" canvassing (which is already frequent and hostile enough that it probably warrants administrative attention under WP:ARBATC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andy's argument" is what I write, not what you write for me. Now it's an obvious tactic to misrepresent someone like this, but cut it out.
My argument is this:
  1. There are a set of classes (CMB, HDML, ML, HSL, MTB, MGB, maybe others) for which the RN itself cooked up a definition of a type of small vessel. For which they had several example types built of each.
  2. We should have specific articles on these classes. This is more important than the naming of those articles, i.e. MTB should cover only the RN MTBs, not torpedo boats in general. Likewise Motor Launch. The classes each pass WP:N.
    We should have specific articles on the types within them too. Editorial resource pending, some of those might be missing or stubby for some time.
  3. We should name the specific articles on these classes according to the sources. I believe that those sources support capitalisation. We do not as yet have any agreement on that, I recognise.
  4. Disambiguation by capitalisation alone is not ideal. So I would be fine with Motor Torpedo Boat (Royal Navy) or similar, likewise Motor Launch (Royal Navy). I think these are the only examples: the other classes are names which are themselves RN-specific.
    Note that the names are capitalised (or not) according to #3. This is not a disambiguation question.
    We do not need to disambiguate Motor Gun Boat etc. when there is no corresponding article at motor gun boat (it's a redir).
    We do not need an article on high-speed launch, only on High Speed Launch. Only the RAF HSL examples would pass WP:N.
Now, your disagreement for #3 is assumed, but do you question #1, #2 or #4 as well? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"They're called motor torpedo boats because they have diesel engines"

[edit]

re [2], [3] and [4] "The motor in the designation, referring to the use of either petrol or diesel engines, distinguishes them from the majority of other naval craft of the era"

The first use of "motor torpedo boat" is uncited, but it clearly derives from either the WWI Coastal Motor Boat or Harbour Defence Motor Launch or else the Italian "Motoscafo Armato Silurante". No-one else is calling their early fast boats "motor" anything. Nor are there any diesel boats for a couple of decades. The idea of a diesel MTB isn't even possible until the 1930s and the first high-speed diesel engines (and even after that). So the idea that the name is derived from the use of diesel engines is implausible, and (of course) unsourced.

The first diesel boats are the German Schnellboots (aka E-boats), but these don't get called "motor" anything either.

The first diesel MTBs, under that name, aren't until the 1950s.

We need to stop inventing unsourced fabrications, particularly in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Sorry to be delayed arriving here. Not the kind of thing effectively handled via smartphone.
Let's start at the top. First, your demeaning section title is not appreciated, and puts things off on the wrong foot. Andy, you know better than to act like this. Yet you do. There is no excuse for it, and won't be tolerated. At all.
I made no such claim as you assert. As I have patiently pointed out, it is you that is making the unsourced claim. All I did was add an appropriate fuel type for a type of torpedo boat previously listed in the article lead (and which you have left intact with your revert this morning) - a diesel-powered German "E-boat".
It is your unsourced claim that "motor torpedo boat" only applies to vessels with petrol (gasoline) powered engines. Again, as I have patiently pointed out, all you need to do is source that claim from a truly reliable reference, then delete both my addition of "diesel" and the preexisting inclusion of the diesel-powered E-boat as a "motor torpedo boat" to the lead. There you have it. Bob's your uncle.
This you steadfastly refuse to do, peremptorily unleashing WP Burden and accusing me of (by inference, but certainly not fact) introducing the E-boat to the Motor Torpedo Boat article, which I most assuredly did not, and implying that I am asserting the term "motor torpedo boat" was derived from diesel-fueled boats, which again I most assuredly did not. Then pig-pile on uncivil taunts and remonstrations, such as that I'm responsible for adding "unsourced fabrications" to article leads.
Andy, all I did was add the correct fuel for a vessel already in the lead. The burden is on you to establish via a universally acceptable citation that someone else errantly added E-boat to the lead, then, once you have done that, you are free to delete both its mention and my addition of diesel to fuel(s). But not until then.
And, if you are feeling like being a responsible editor, perhaps rather than deleting those two items incorporate them into a brief statement (citing the same source) that though many people believe the E-boat to have been a "motor torpedo boat", it is not, as it was diesel-powered and thus simply a "torpedo boat". That would keep future editors from mistakenly adding it. First, though, you must establish that your assertion is correct.
Then jive it with your own assertion, reproduced here verbatim from your comments immediately above, "The first diesel MTBs, under that name, aren't until the 1950s". "The first diesel MTBs"...(i.e. "motor torpedo boats")..."aren't until the 1950s." Well, here you are calling diesel-powered craft "MTBs"....
Feel free to straighten that out in the article while you are at it. Meanwhile, NO EDIT WARRING over the inclusion of diesel fuel in the lead (per the previously uncontested addition of E-boat to it, by someone other than me). And belay the incivility, here, now, and for good.
I am reverting your most recent revert, and referencing you here. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name MTB is in widespread use and established long before there are diesel boats. To claim that the name is thus derived from diesels is still nonsense, no matter how many times you just keep re-adding it. If this isn't what you claim, then write something which doesn't read as if it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Fine. Done.
Now, can we work together to clean up the article? It could certainly use it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm. That's weird. How come that didn't post before I made the changes to the article over two hours ago? I just had to "revive" and re-save it now. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On capitalisation of "motor torpedo boat"

[edit]

As to this edit to cap "motor torpedo boat" for the RN type of boat, see This discussion at WT:SHIPS and the RM immediately above refer. MTB (motor torpedo boat) is a type designation that was used by the RN particularly and applied to several designs or classes of boats. Types of ships or boats (eg frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc) are not capitalised. Nor do we capitalise to indicate an initialism. Per MOS:CAPS, the burden rests with the proponent to show that caps a necessary per usage in sources. There is certainly enough in the previous threads to indicate that the requirement for consistent capitaliseation, in this context, is not indicated by the sources. There is also a burden to discuss after the initial revert from the status quo. Perhaps the closer, QEDK, might elaborate on how they assessed the consensus to move. It is likely to save what will essentially be a rehash of the same arguements. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a relatively uncontentious RM, Andy was the only one who seemed to be against the prospect of this being moved on reasonings beyond Wikipedia policies, they also saw it fit to oppose my RfA was over it (not that I was bothered but the correct way to contest my close is at WP:MR, not protest at my RfA). Simply put, Andy's argument can considered an indirect implication of WP:OFFICIALNAME supplement, but that is not close to the standing policies of WP:NCCAPS and WP:COMMONNAME which was illustrated by the people in support. That's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Naming should be based on whom I hold a grudge against" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might I assume that's a clever quip for you contesting my future RM closes because I don't have any memory of holding a grudge against you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiuser100, with this edit, you reinstated caps to ... the specific designation "Motor Torpedo Boat" is generally used for craft of the Royal Navy (RN) ... This matter is specifically the subject of this discussion. As noted above, designation of a type is not usually capped and to be capped, it would have to meet the criteria of MOS:CAPS. The RM and associated discussion does not support caps in such usage - ie the burden to cap (consistent usage) is not met for that context.

The edit also added (caps to) These were not known as "Motor Torpedo Boats" at the time ... and ... "PT" stood for "Patrol, Torpedo" ... which also appears to be a miscapitalisation. Capitalisation for the latter is inconsistent with both the main article (PT boat) and Patrol torpedo boat PT-109. See the lead sentence in each.

This edit then then adds another instance of "Motor Torpedo Boats" and caps Motor Torpedo Boat squadrons. "Motor torpedo boat squadron" (analogous with "destroyer squadron" or similar) would only be capped when used as part of the fuller name of a particular squadron.

As I don't wish to get into an edit war, I would hope you might address these, particularly as this discussion was already open. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're claiming that your source for MTB never being capitalised is other WP articles, and another WP article about a different type altogether.
Let's rename "PT boat" to "motor torpedo boat (US navy)". Because your argument is just that: all motor torpedo boats were only ever called "motor torpedo boats", in the uncapitalised generic sense. You deny that any particular navy had a distinct name for their own types, so the RN can't have Motor Torpedo Boats (they clearly did) and the US can't have Patrol Torpedo boat as a type (they clearly did). Yet again, you're re-arranging reality to fit a WP styleguide. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like Andy said.
The capitals are used to make accurate historic distinctions, not comply with some arbitrary 2020 Wikipedia imperfectly applied guideline.
It's a fact that the class of boat was capitalized contemporaneously with its creation. Two nights ago I watched a movie made during World War II that is all about PT boats, They Were Expendable. You could tell throughout just listening that there were capitals when the term was used. Admirals and the specific squadron commander were not saying, "Take all three - canoes, kayaks, and motor torpedo boats." Or, (to paraphrase, again), "Take your power boats - You know, those plywood thingies, what do you call them, motor torpedo boats? - and transport General MacArthur to Mindanao." They were referring to Motor Torpedo Boats (or PT boats) as a class of small gasoline-powered torpedo-armed attack craft as the US Navy referred to its own vessels. And who should know more about how and what they were called than the folks they belonged to and operated them? Why are we re-writing history here? We shouldn't. We can't: that is not a prerogative granted by creating Wikipedia. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have the movie. You can't "hear" capital letters. WP relies on consistent usage in sources to determine capitalisation and gives weight to contemporary (not contemporaneous) usage. That one might "hear" capitalisation in a (near) contemporaneous movie dialogue does not meet these criteria. It is an opinion without real substance. If we followed contemporaneous usage, there would be some articles written with every noun capitalised. Further, motor torpedo boats (with or without caps) are not a class but a type and Motor Torpedo Boats (or PT boats) defeats the arguement that the term should be capped in reference to the RN boats. It also flys in the face of the just concluded RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I grasp that you can't "hear" capitals. Ya' think? My point, and argument made, still stands. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "type" of vessels is not normally capitalised, even if that type (as a name) is peculiar to one particular navy. This does not make it a proper name nor does it (because it is somehow distinct or specific) require capitalisation. WP does not use capitalisation for distinction nor capitalisation for expanding an initialism. WP relies on sources to determine capitalisation. It also places a burden to show that capitalisation is necessary. The RN did have boats they called "motor torpedo boats", while other navies had similar boats they call "patrol, torpedo boats" or other names. There is also, more generally, boats with motors and torpedoes (and sometimes, other things). That it is necessary to capitalise any of the name phrases is not established. The arguement is a strawman and relies on a distinction not proven in the face of established criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is "angels dancing on the head of a pin. They were the Navy's boats. They called them "Motor Torpedo Boats". How can we even be talking about us calling them something else because we insist on artificial, self-created standardization?
I did not change the title of the article. I merely distinguished instances where "motor torpedo boats" (lc) were referred to as "Motor Torpedo Boats" (uc). Like, uh, by their owners and operators. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear why you think uppercase is better in those contexts. The Royal Navy does not consistently cap it in the their own publications, even when referring to specific MTBs. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motor_torpedo_boat&oldid=1213138020"