Talk:Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro

A fact from Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro (pictured) was once mistaken for a war-bound privateer?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro.

Wikipedia

Military history: Maritime / South America

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	South American military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Requested move 3 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian coastal defense ship Deodoro → Deodoro – proper name of ship Yoninah (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Or Deodoro (disambiguation) to Deodoro? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The ship got her name from the marshal. Appah Rao (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The name of the ship is Deodoro. It doesn't make sense to add the description before the title. You could call the page Deodoro (ship) if it needs to be disambiguated. Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC) You don't need to support your own proposal. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Deodoro means other things also: see Deodoro (disambiguation). Is the ship the dominant meaning? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's the ship's name. Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidence? Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - All the sources in this article are offline, but it looks like one is calling it just Deodoro. Another Wikipedia article, Deodoro-class coastal defense ship, is calling the ship Marshal Deodoro, per Appah Rao's comment, above. This is getting complicated. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both names are used in sources; I went with the one used by the Brazilian Navy for lack of a better option. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Anthony Appleyard: I see I have made a mistake in the move request. I said the page should be moved to Deodoro, which is a disambiguation page, and I didn't understand your question about it at the beginning. I'm afraid that every "Oppose" vote has been cast with this mistake in mind. I should have been more specific, like Deodoro (ship) or Marshal Deodoro. My goal was to get rid of the long nationality-and-description being placed before the ship's name. @The ed17: a page name should reflect the majority of sources, not just the Brazilian Navy website. I hope that this long title can be fixed without shooting down the whole move request. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Hey Yoninah, no worries. :-) On the actual name, I'd say that the modern sources are split pretty evenly, so I chose what the 'official' source (the organization that owned the ship) used. My suspicion is that the ships were renamed at some point, dropping "Marechal" (English: "Marshal"), but I have nothing to confirm when that may have happened. On your renaming proposal, I would point you to WP:NCSHIPS—moving it to a title like those you've proposed would contravene those guidelines. What would you think about closing this move request and starting a wider discussion on WT:SHIPS or the guideline's talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Quick follow-up: I've suddenly realized that your query about the page name is probably about "Brazilian coastal defense ship," not "Marshal Deodoro" vs "Deodoro" like I'd assumed. Please refer to NCSHIPS for why "Brazilian coastal defense ship" is in the title! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I understand. I read NCSHIPS and see why I'm completely outvoted here. I'll withdraw my request. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the military ship naming conventions. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - title is in accordance with the longstanding consensus represented by WP:NC-SHIPS. Parsecboy (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the current title is fully in keeping with WP:NC-S. No need to change it. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2017 (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.