Talk:Bulwark class battleship (1859)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force

	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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Renames

Propose renaming a couple of articles you started:

• Bulwark Class Battleship (1859) to Bulwark class battleship (1859)
• Duncan class (1859) to Duncan class battleship (1859)

When you get a chance, please let me know if this is appropriate. Thanks. Maralia 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I have no objection.--Toddy1 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC) However, it would probably be better to use "line-of-battle ship" as that is what they were called at the time. The term "battleship" is a contraction of "line-of-battle ship" and seems to date from 1882.--Toddy1 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, I was just about to ask you about that, namely "would you have any objection to 'Bulwark class ship of the line (1859)' and 'Duncan class ship of the line (1859)'". But I guess now that you wouldn't. If that's ok with you, mind if I make the move? Kind regards, Benea 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that "line-of-battle ship" and "liner" were the preferred term for steam line-of-battle ships. I have only ever seen "ship of the line" used for sailing vessels (Fincham uses the term.) What I have done is to put a rename proposal up.--Toddy1 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that "line-of-battle ship" and "liner" were the preferred term for steam line-of-battle ships. I have only ever seen "ship of the line" used for sailing vessels (Fincham uses the term.) What I have done is to put a rename proposal up.--Toddy1 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to 'Line of battle ship'. Perhaps we could get some opinions from WP:Ships? Benea 21:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is always line-of-battle ship. Not line of battle ship.--Toddy1 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, attempting to be brief, carpe diem and all that. But since you mention it, the convention is not to use dashes in the article titles, hence Arrogant class ship of the line, Canada class ship of the line and Ramillies class ship of the line. But we would refer to them in prose text as line-of-battle ship. --Benea 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Battleship says that the term dates from 1794, well before these were made. Wouldn't just "battleship" be simpler? We don't even have a general article on "line of battle ships". 60.40.52.234 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

It may be worth looking at this more generally, see the variety of terms used in Le Napoléon (1850) and HMS Agamemnon (1852). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)