Talk:French destroyer Le Triomphant

: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: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

----

:French destroyer Triomphant → {{no redirect|French destroyer Le Triomphant}} – WP:Article titles - name most commonly used and WP:Naming conventions (ships) - format. Refer to text, references, sources and links in article to confirm that for this ship Le forms part of the ship name Lyndaship (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:SHIPS does not mention native language, and per WP:COMMONNAME (79,800 results for French destroyer Triomphant vs. 69,700 for French destroyer Le Triomphant). -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• :Support per arguments. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Neither should get over 1000 hits outside of Wikipedia, indicating that you have neglected to put the search terms in quotation marks here. However, adding "French destroyer" to the name indicates that this is intended to be a descriptive title rather than one based on WP:COMMONNAME. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• No, the "French destroyer" is both a ship's prefix (class name) and a Wikipedia disambuiguator. Does not indicate informal name is OK. - DePiep (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• :Not correct. "French destroyer" is a disambiguator but it is not a ship prefix. WP:NCSHIPS#Ships from navies without ship prefixes specifies that article titles for ships in navies that do not use ship prefixes shall, in lieu of a prefix, be named:
• ::<nationality> <type> <name>
• :"French destroyer" is not a class name. Such an assertion implies that the French navy has a single class of destroyers; clearly not true.
• :—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• I wasn't making any claim about the proposal, only about WP:COMMONNAME and the Google searches. Use of a Wikipedia disambiguator of any kind indicates that we are not talking about how the entire sequence fits WP:COMMONNAME. Dekimasuよ! 18:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Formal ship's (base) name, no need to alter taht one. - DePiep (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. No strong reason to modify a proper name, which also changes the meaning, as shown in the article (= a noun "the triumphant one", not adjective "triumphant"). And we should be very cautious about following sources which are known to be wrong. Davidships (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.