Talk:Chinese ironclad Pingyuan

Request of rename

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 the page, although there may be support for creating separate articles on different incarnations of the ship, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:17, 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 Pingyuan, and linked to the Heien.

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 Heien. --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 Pingyuan in the Beiyang fleet, ending with its capture by the Japanese, and a second article on its subsequent career as the Heien in the Japanese navy. I would certainly welcome and support the creation of such a new article specific to the Pingyuan. --MChew 14:11, 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.

TWENTY INCHES of deck armour?

I presume the "20" is a typo for "2." TiC (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to Pingyuan

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Japanese gunboat Heien → Chinese ironclad Pingyuan – The most notable feature of this ship is that it was the first indigenously built Chinese ironclad warship. Although most of its actual service history is unremarkable, its service with the Beiyang fleet seems much more important than its brief time blockading for the Japanese and then being sunk by a mine. Both of these arguments support renaming this article as "Chinese ironclad Pingyuan" or "Chinese gunboat Pingyuan" (I will let the naval history experts make the distinction between the two types of ship) per the naming conventions for ships of multiple nationalities. Those guidelines suggest that the article "be placed at the best-known name", while the linked section and the section below it focus on "significant" service and what the ship in question is "best known for". Finally, Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan and Chinese cruiser Jiyuan, which as far as I can tell are the only other Beiyang fleet ships repurposed by the Japanese for which we have an article, set a precedent in favor or retaining the Chinese name. Toadspike (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.