Talk:Chinese cruiser Jiyuan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Japanese cruiser Saien to Jiyuan (cruiser), per the discussion below, although there may be support for creating a separate article at that title. Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

All the naval ship article which had served for more than more countries were named by the original country name.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) See See HNoMS Olav Tryggvason,Richelieu class battleship.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not so. See Japanese cruiser Tsugaru / Russian cruiser Pallada (1899) or Japanese cruiser Soya / Russian cruiser Varyag for examples. A new article should be created for the Jinyuan, and linked to the Saien.

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships): An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name” -- “But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship.

So it should be perfectly acceptable to keep the name as Saien. --MChew 07:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The chinese name is as well known as the japanese name.I cann't see the prominence of japanese name.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying whether the Japanese name or the Chinese name is prominent. What I am saying is that it is perfectly acceptable (and often preferable) under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) to have one article on the career of the Jinyuan in the Beiyang fleet, ending with its capture by the Japanese, and a second article on its subsequent career as the cruiser Saien in the Japanese navy. I would certainly welcome and support the creation of such a new article specific to the Jinyuan. --MChew 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,I didn't read carefully your words,without completing reading all your statement,I jumped to So it should be perfectly acceptable to keep the name as Saien.,and presumed you didn't favor another article or rename.Another question,according the convention,if I created the Jiyuan article,it's better or not the service in Japanese navy being included or not?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, I would only make a mention at the end, stating that "after Jiyuan was captured by the Japanese at the Battle of Weihaiwei, it was later recommissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy under the name of Saien", and adding a link to the Saien article.--MChew 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.