Talk:SS Raifuku Maru
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jmcgnh in topic Propose removing "Myths and legends" section
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move
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.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Two of the three sources in the article omit the SS, Google Books search yields 5 hits for SS version vs. 500 without the SS. WP:COMMONNAME, and consistency with Seisho Maru. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
SS Raifuku Maru → Raifuku Maru – Japanese ships did not routinely use ship prefixes. Majority of WP articles on Japanese merchant ships do not use prefixes. See Talk:Seisho Maru for example of similar requested move. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC) 72.177.178.41 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, this website says it had the SS. Do you have any evidence such as a ship registry entry? Otherwise it's hard to say. G-13114 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Relisting comment - this one needs a serious WP:COMMONNAME based discussion, because apparently both names are used in sources at times. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - The move would be consistent with other articles on Japanese ships.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Convention is that merchant steamship articles are generally housed at "SS Foo" titles (except where other prefixes such as RMS, TSS etc are appropriate). No need to move the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Is there any evidence that Japanese ships didn't use prefixes? And is there any evidence as to whether this ship didn't, such as a ship registry entry etc? Unless the answer to both of the above is yes, then I think it should stay here. G-13114 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2012 (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.
Er why has this been moved when there was no consensus to move it? G-13114 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Er for the reasons given in the close, and WP:NOTVOTE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Propose removing "Myths and legends" section
editUnless this section can be supported with more reliable sources, I think it should just be removed. (I just came here to disambiguate Camperdown!) —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @96.247.146.97: Thanks for your edit to support this section. Berlitz is a questionable source on some subjects, but perhaps can be relied on to describe what the legend was. Is "Mystery writers" the right thing, though? Usually that applies mostly to writers of fictional whodunits. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)