Talk:Convoy PQ 18 order of battle

Spelling

The headings for the Spitzbergen refueling, and reinforcement, groups were changed, without an edit summary, recently.
As "Spitzbergen" is the spelling used in all three sources here, and as that spelling is the one used in the names of these groups by the RN, and as it is entirely unclear what is meant by it ( whether the (Norwegian) island of Spitsbergen itself or the territory of Svalbard; the name in British usage can apply to both):
I’ve put it back to the way it was originally. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling "Spitsbergen" can apply to both the island and the group as a whole as well. "Spitzbergen" is not "British usage", but a mistake made by authors who are not familiar with the island's/archipelago's discovery and the significane of the Dutch spelling. The Germans did not discover the island(s), so there is absolutely no reason to use the German spelling; even if your sources mistakenly use it.Jonas Poole (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the English language WP, not the Dutch, so the Dutch name is pretty irrelevant.

We are supposed to be guided by reliable sources; in this case that is what they all say, and your opinion that they are “mistaken” is neither here nor there. Do you have a reliable source that refers to these units by the name that you favour?

And the correct name for the island group ( in Norwegian anyway; I don’t know what it is in Dutch) is Svalbard (see here); Spitsbergen ( in Norwegian ) is the island.[1]

Nor does it matter particularly who discovered the islands; and ”Spitzbergen” may well be the spelling the Germans use, but it’s also the spelling used by the British, which is more to the point. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(No reply)

I see you’ve changed the spellings again, without an explanation, and without making any reply here.

So, what, are you just going to edit scuffle to get your own way? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative note - this is turning into a slow edit war. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the common name in the English language, which is Spitzbergen. If there is further disruption on this article, I will take further action. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please outline specifically how you came to the conclusion that this is the common name - upon examination that does not seem to be the case, and in fact you might be relying on unreliable sources to make this determination. Either way, since you have chosen to make an administrative point of it I think a more detailed explanation of your reasoning would be in order to aid future editors, who will undoubtedly see the disparity in coverage of Wikipedia articles mentioning Spitsbergen. Weakopedia (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck do you know about the common spelling of Spitsbergen? Nothing. So shut the fuck up. Understood? Jonas Poole (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we have administrative action to say that it just is SpitZbergen and anyone who says otherwise gets blocked? Spits/zbergen? I disagree - indeed, it is unprovable. Bad form from all sides on this one. Weakopedia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, what I wanted stopped was the edit war (done). The source on the Spitsbergen article is over 100 years old. As I said at WP:ANI, the English language is fluid and spellings do change over time. I'm familiar with the "z" spelling rather than the "s" spelling. For the moment, I'm prepared to change the spelling back. I also propose to file a RFC on the issue, so that it can be finally settled. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
I think RfC could be a reasonable idea, to get a wider perspective, but if the looked-for outcome is “a one size fits all” solution then I would disagree.
I don’t think this question does have a single solution.
I would suggest that British usage, historically, and amongst Britons of a certain age today, is to use “Spitzbergen” ( z spelling) for both the island and the archipelago as a whole, though I’m happy to concede the local names "Svalbard" and "Spitsbergen" (s spelling) may be more common with a newer generation.
My cavil is that for some areas, like (as here) British naval history, the reliable sources ( like Smith, Hague, Kemp, Roskill, etc) will use the z spelling, and changing this to a modern usage is playing fast and loose with the source. WP is descriptive not prescriptive, after all, and is concerned with verifiability rather than truth.
But if WP is comfortable with different English usage ( with the general principle “leave things as you find them”) why not with this issue?
I’d also suggest if there is a discrepancy between here and the Spitsbergen / Svalbard pages, the problem is there, with a dogmatic assertion “the German spelling Spitzbergen is often (incorrectly) used in English" based on a single century old quote.
And the remedy, also there, is a broad statement on spelling and english usage: something like " “ british english usage historically used the spelling "Spitzbergen" to refer to both the archipelago and the island, though in more modern times use of the local terms is more common". What does anyone else think? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Xyl, you make a good point above. As I see it there are three options here - 1) use "Spitsbergen" throughout Wikipedia, 2) Use "Spitzbergen" througout Wikipedia. 3) Use either spelling, per sources quoted and/or original author's preference. Before this goes to RfC, we really ought to have a clear proposal and outcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would (predictably) favour option.3): I think .1) is wrong, for the reasons I’ve given, but I certainly don’t want to try and foist .2) onto everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through a lot of sources mentioning Spitsbergen. To make sure I was getting a good overview I picked a lot of big websites (news, history and meteorological) and searched for both spellings on their sites. The best thing that can be said about coverage of this is that there is no preferred useage amongst English speakers.

As I mentioned to Xyl, try looking it up on the BBC. They use both spellings - sometimes even within the same article. They have no prejudice or preferred spelling. In fact, out of all the sources there seem to be only two so far mentioned that specifically say which spelling is correct - Encyclopedia Britannica, and Sir Martin Conway, and they both say Spitsbergen. Ok, they are 100 years old, but I do not see that they have been somehow superceded by a massive change in useage of Spitzbergen over Spitsbergen. The common name is still divided between the two.

Option 3) means that the reader of this article, if they wish additional information on the Spitzbergen they see mentioned, will follow the link and find the page entitled Spitsbergen and a note (with source) in the first line telling them that Spitzbergen was the incorrect spelling. If they Google it they will find the same sources I did - lots that say Spitsbergen, lots that say Spitzbergen, and two that say people who use Spitzbergen are either wrong, German, or both.

I think that this encyclopedia reader would expect to be told why we have an article on the correct spelling of Spitsbergen yet we do not follow the policy in our own articles. At the very least, now that the issue has been raised, I would have expected to see a note on this article explaining why Spitzbergen was used in preference.

My belief is that there is enough evidence of both names being in useage today, but nothing to show that Spitzbergen is the common name for Wikipedia, and with two sources explaining why Spitsbergen is accurate then I think Wikipedia coverage should be consistent in using Spitsbergen.

And if there is some doubt as to the sources meaning of the use of the term Spitzbergen that this should be made clear in some kind of note or addition to the article - there is no harm in using Spitzbergen in an article if it explains why it is picking that version, but to use the two versions across Wikipedia without explanation is not good for the encyclopedia.

So in my opinion - option 1) provides good reasoning for considering itself the correct method. Option 2) has no source to make it preferred Wikiwide, and for this article - well, here are a few sources using Spitsbergen,Telegraph newspaperHistory of United States Naval Operations in World War II on Google booksNaval History site (this one uses both spellings) so the preferred method for this article may be an accident of the sourcing used. For that reason option 3) is not preferred as if an article is notable it will have been in several sources and in all likelihood if you have several sources you will find both spellings. Weakopedia (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TIME magazine says Spitsbergen, usually and incorrectly written Spitzbergen, is the main island of an Arctic archipelago off the coast of Greenland. Weakopedia (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisle Abbott Rose in his book Explorer: the life of Richard E. Byrd uses Spitsbergen exclusively, yet quotes Byrd who used Spitzbergen, presumable because Rose considered Spitsbergen to be the commonname. Weakopedia (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In Polar Record (2003) #39 pp165-175 (Cambridge University Press) H. All says ...sailed to Spitsbergen (throughout the book this is incorrectly written Spitzbergen). Weakopedia (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, some of what Mr Poole said to Xyl, although I don't believe he made the fact clear, was luckily not copytheft due to it's age - he was quoting from Conways book where he says Let me then first appeal to reviewers and all readers alike henceforward to spell the name of the country correctly. Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling ; Spitz- bergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second ' s ' asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer. (note: I cannot find anymore where jp said this, I think it was deleted due to his incivility) Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Weakopedia)

You say you found "no preferred useage amongst English speakers", backed up by your BBC, and Lisle Rose examples; surely that's an argument against, not for, treating either spelling as the only possible choice.

And you say reader following the link from here to Spitsbergen will find "a note (with source) in the first line telling them that Spitzbergen was the incorrect spelling"; that's an argument for fixing the Spitsbergen page, particularly as whether it's incorrect or not is begging the question.

Also you "would have expected to see a note on this article explaining why Spitzbergen was used"; it has one, though the wording is negotiable.

On the point about claiming WP:COMMON; that page says to determine the common name we “follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article”. The sources here do use z, so it was not wrong to claim support from there.

On the claim that the z spelling is incorrect, or inaccurate; this is debatable, but also immaterial; WP: COMMON also says “common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms", so whether z is a mistake or not, if it is common use it is valid here. In regard to that, your TIME quote "usually and incorrectly written Spitzbergen" also bears out the z is the "usual" spelling.

The doubt as to the meaning is from the ambiguity in English, not because the sources are unreliable; Roskill is the RN official historian; if you are wanting to say he’s an unreliable source, then we are poles apart...

Your link to Morison doesn’t mention Spitsbergen except in the search parameter, which doesn’t get you very far; however I’ve looked at a hard copy and Morison does use the s spelling. I wondered if that indicated a Brit/Am distinction, being as the TIME reference I found (and yours) are also American. The link to Naval histories also; the HMS Scylla page has z, which pages have s ?

And you refer a couple of times to "the correct spelling of Spitsbergen"; well, that is the point at issue, isn't it? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PS The comment from Jonas was, I think, on my talk page; he referred me to the Conway quote at the Spitsbergen page anyway. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that is this article had more reliable sources using Spitsbergen then the idea that Spitzbergen is the common name for this article might not be so easy to argue, so I might work on that aspect while we wait for the other editors who will flock to our assistance in deciding the matter once the RFC starts. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you’ll be needing a source that gives that spelling in the title of two British naval formations of WWII, so good luck with that...

But please be clear, I’m not arguing for the z spelling across the board; I’m just arguing for the facility to use it where it's appropriate, without getting into a fight about it not being Dutch.

Anyway, as you say, we can await the deluge...Xyl 54 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion

Since the recent edit spat over spelling a few days ago we’ve now got a bit of a confusion.
In the three instances of spelling at issue, the current spelling now disagrees with the notes attached to them, as they cite sources that say the exact opposite.

• SS Oligarch has "joined from Spitsbergen sic: see Hague" where Hague has this
• 'Second stage Spitsbergen re-fueling group' has "Spelled as it's supposed to be! ( though it previously had "spelling as source"); Smith p213" where Smith uses the z spelling
• 'Second stage Spitsbergen re-inforcement group' has "Correct spelling; Smith p213"; again, where Smith uses the z spelling.

If this is going to RfC it mayn’t be resolved for a while so I suggest it needs a temporary solution till then. Either the spelling needs changing (which would reflect the status quo ante) or the notes and source citations need to be removed.
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the spelling back to the "s" version not because I think it is correct, but because of the statement on the Spitsbergen page saying that the "z" spelling is wrong. It's not something I'm prepared to edit war over and the removal of that statement will need to be discussed - either on the article's talk page or at the RFC, which I will file soon unless someone else wants to go ahead and file it. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC

As discussed above, the spelling of Spit(s/z)bergen needs to be addressed across Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, we have three options:-

1. Use the spelling "Spitsbergen" across Wikipedia, regardless of what sources say.
2. Use the spelling "Spitzbergen" across Wikipedia, regardless of what sources say.
3. Allow the use of either "Spitsbergen" or "Spitzbergen" depending on what sources say, and/or editor preference. Once the form of spelling is decided on, it should not be changed unless discussion has been held and consensus is to change it. A template may be added to the talk page of an article stating which form to use for the guidance of other editors. Edit warring over the spelling to be dealt with in the usual way, with a minimum 1 week block being applied. This appears to be a WP:GDAŃZIG issue, but let's keep the discussion civil please. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

Listed at WP:CENT for wider audience. The issue of the statement in the lede of the Spit(s/z)bergen article is subject to a separate RFC at that article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an appropriate discussion for Cent - WP:CENTNOT. This is a content or topic specific matter which can be dealt with through other channels. CENT would become overloaded if every content dispute were listed there. SilkTork *^YES! 10:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for guidance. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources tend to use both spellings, though most have Spitsbergen. And explanations, such as the one in Time magazine, that Spitsbergen is the correct spelling are convincing. As Spitzbergen is incorrect then it shouldn't be used. For internal consistency, and following our own guidelines and common sense, it would be more appropriate to use Spitsbergen regardless of sources. This is what we do in all other cases where there are alternative spellings. Is there a reason why this situation is different? SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

A Yahoo search for Spitsbergen gives 3,300,000 results, whilst a Yahoo search for Spitzbergen gives 4,580,000 results. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why have you added another section called 'Comments from involved editors'? You seem to have been involved with this argument from the start. I suggest that you refactor your comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The results appear to depend on the search engine. Google gives 4,290,000 for Spitsbergen and 3,280,000 for Spitzbergen. It's easy to go with an either/or situation, though that would tend to invite some form of edit warring or internal inconsistency. As there is a valid explanation from a reliable source that Spitzbergen is incorrect, then it might be more appropriate to go with Spitsbergen. I understand the personal attachment to familiarity, and reluctance to change, though when there are statements that the familiar is incorrect then perhaps adjustments are neccessary. Are there sources which explain that Spitzbergen is more appropriate? SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few involved parties who may wish to comment, so this section is to allow openness by giving those parties a chance to comment, yet clearly showing that they have involvement in the arguement. I've refactored my comment as you suggested, removing my preference and reducing it to a plain showing of the Yahoo search results. I hope you find this acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Appologies, Mjroots, my comment was based on my misreading of the heading as 'uninvolved editors', I will strike it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll leave my preferences out of it in any case. I don't intend to comment further in either RFC, unless asked a direct question. I will be keeping a weather eye on the discussion though. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that the search engine results do not show is the quality of sources, nor I suppose do they show how Spitsbergen is used by them. I posted the links above where the BBC use both spellings in the same article; a look on CNN shows that they prefer Z but Fox News uses exclusively S... Everywhere you look you find reliable sources using either, or both names. The problem in this specific case is that the sources used for this article all use Z, but I think that is simply due to the selection of source material - as I said above, if a topic is notable it will be in many reliable sources, and when many reliable sources describe Spitsbergen you get both spellings. Using Z here and S for the main article about Spitsbergen treats this as a separate subject, but it is all one encyclopedia and we should strive for consistency, especially when that consistency is supported by reliable sources saying why that is appropriate. Weakopedia (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some references to PQ 18. The National Archives have a map of PQ 18s travels, described on their site as map of area between northern Scotland, Iceland, Spitsbergen and...[2]. Shooting the War: The Memoir and Photographs of a U-Boat Officer in World War II By Otto Giese, James E. Wise, Jr. uses Spitsbergen [3]. SERVICE HISTORIES of ROYAL NAVY WARSHIPS in WORLD WAR 2 by Lt Cdr Geoffrey B Mason RN (Rtd) uses both spellings [4]. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: The Battle of the ... By Samuel Eliot Morison [5] uses Spitsbergen. Telegraph obituary of Flight Lieutenant Ernest Schofield uses Spitsbergen.[6] Weakopedia (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your sources;

2)How do we see the map? The National Archive may call it that nowadays, but what did the Admiralty call it at the time?

3)I’m guessing Giese is German and Wise is American; how does that affect RN terminology?

4)Scylla’s page uses z (11 Sept entry) where does he use s?

5)Morison is the USN historian; again, how does this shed light on RN terms?

6)Telegraph article: There’s no argument from me that current British sources use s spelling at times; but Schofield wasn't involved with PQ 18.

How do these help your case?Xyl 54 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

2) You pay, like everyone else. In the meantime, what does it matter if the map contents use a different spelling - this RFC is about the common name, and the National Archive use Spitsbergen. Do you doubt the validity of the National Archives use of SpitSbergen?

3) They are both in English, for an English speaking audience. I don't really get your point - if it is that the Spitzbergen refuelling group is a designation and not just a description of the place, well that is a bit different to your earlier assertion that they might just mean Svalbard when saying Spitzbergen... so can you just provide the quote you are basing your ideas on? Then we can all follow your line of thinking.

4) Use ctrl+f and type "Spitsbergen" followed by enter.

5) See 3)

6) See 3)

We know your sources use Spitzbergen, but you first thought they meant Spitsbergen, and then that they meant Svalbard and now (I think) that they mean the RN officially designated Spitzbergen refuelling group - none of which is made clear by the article we have. If you aren't sure what the sources mean, how is the encyclopedia reader to know what you mean without a clear explanation? Weakopedia (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We are talking specifically about PQ 18; you said earlier you were looking for reliable sources that used s for this article, so I was querying what you had actually found.

The NA online index is fairly modern, the documents in it are old. I’ve already acknowledged the modern day usage includes s spelling, so this doesn't tell us much; the spelling on the Admiralty chart of 1942-ish, on the other hand, might. Likewise the Telegraph link. A current text referring to PQ 18 and using the s indicates current use; it doesn’t cast any doubt on the z being standard throughout the 20th century.

Also as I’ve noted American English seems to have used the s spelling for a long time, hence the observation that Wise and Morison might be expected to use it (you do know there’s a difference between British and American English, don’t you? I presumed so, but I don’t know where you are writing from.)

And thanks for the search tip for service histories. I checked some of the the cruisers that went there at various times (I haven’t done the destroyers, there’s quite a lot of them). I found two refs to s, and about a dozen to z, so I don’t know what that tells us (Ambivalence? Variations in sources? Typing errors?)

And I didn’t “first think”, “then think”, “now think” at all. I am trying to accommodate new information via discussion (ie learning). Considering I came to this discussion I response to a fairly rabid insistence on a highly partisan viewpoint, I think I’m doing OK. But I was always knew "Spitzbergen" in English had a double meaning; I queried it because of this Dutch/Norwegian thing. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument for "Spitzbergen" (the z spelling) was based on WP:COMMON, as all the sources used here used that spelling.
It is also that z has been more common (at least in British English) up to recently, and even in the present day sources can be found that use both in the same article.
There is evidence to suggest the s spelling is more common in American English, hence the comment in TIME (from 1925!), and the suggestion of using either is based on the principles at WP:ENGVAR.
The idea that z is incorrect is based on the Conway quote (from 1906). That British sources prior to that used the z, and after him continued to do so, suggesting his opinion on the matter was not widely heeded. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some sources to back this contention

A book by Laing, 1822 [7], Royal Society papers 1863 [8], Lockyer (in Nature 1896, referring to Conways expedition to Spitzbergen) [9], British Foreign Office 1908 [10], The International year Book 1953 [11], and Hansard 1977 [12]Xyl 54 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

The correct English spelling is Spitsbergen. A quick check of (a) Webster's Dictionary, (b) Collins Dictionary, (c) Times Atlas confirms this. None of these three sources even lists Spitz– as an alternative. There is (and should continue to be) a note in the article on Spitsbergen explaining the relationship between the Spits– and Spitz– spellings. But everywhere else, stick to simple straightforward correct English spelling, other than in quotes, and in proper names that spell it with a Z. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen I can see no real case for using any other spelling. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I rather jumped in with both feet there but I have changed my mind a little. The disputed name seems to refer to that given by the British to a particular group of ships. It may be that the RN intended the name to refer to the place Spitsbergen and misspelled it but nevertheless that was the name they gave to the group. If that is correct then I would suggest that the correct procedure is to use the name actually given with a footnote and/or perhaps a sic. So maybe: Second stage Spitzbergen (sic) re-fueling group for example would be best. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the page on Spitsbergen not only spells it correctly but tells you why it did so I think that any use of Spitzbergen should have an accompanying note to explain why it diverges from the main article. Weakopedia (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because, if I understand the situation correctly, we are not referring to the place but the name actually given to a group of ships. It may well be that the name was misspelling of the place but it was still the name actually given to the group. We have no power to change that. The group could just have well have been have been called X123E. Would we try to 'correct' that. To give another example, we cannot correct the spelling in London Town Publik House to the correct modern spelling of 'public' because that is not the name actually given to the house.

So to sum up, if there are reliable sources showing that the group of ships was named the 'Spitzbergen group' then that is the only name we can possibly use when referring to it, with a note to explain why we have not used the correct spelling. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant - if the use of Spitzbergen means anything other than Spitsbergen (there is suggestion that some sources say Spits/zbergen when they mean Svalbard) then we mustn't change it, just inform the reader as to the actual meaning as you illustrated. Do you have a reference to where they mean a refuelling group? Weakopedia (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Weakopedia)

The references, as you know, are from Roskill, the Official Historian, and the authors listed on this page (Hague, Kemp, Smith). Xyl 54 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are the sources, I was thinking more like a quote from one of the books that makes this point clear. This point of the RN using Spitzbergen to mean something other than Spitsbergen itself isn't shown in this article, and it really ought to be if we are to show the difference to the encyclopedia reader. How are they to know that maybe Spits/zbergen, in this case, means something other than Spitsbergen if we don;t tell them? Weakopedia (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We explain it thus: Second stage Spitzbergen (sic) re-fueling group Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(reply to weakopedia)

If you want page numbers they are in the notes. I copied the table in Smiths book "The Story of PQ 18", on p 213; there is a similar table in Roskill (The War at Sea Vol II p 285.

As for the RN "using Spitzbergen to mean something other than Spitsbergen itself": The term is broad in English; it could refer to the island or the island group (strictly, I suppose the island was West Spitz ). Spits is not synonymous; it refers to the island only. The island group is Svalbard. If you are modernizing the spelling, it is as legitimate to use Svalbard as it is to use Spits.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to disparage your views, it is obvious we are all having to learn something to comment fully, and as things become more clear. In the beginning we all thought they meant Spitsbergen but now there are three options - Spitsbergen, Svalbard or Spitzbergen refuelling group - but the sources used haven't changed, still the three sources. The danger here is that we are straying into original research. If the text doesn't make it obvious, maybe we need a better source - are we really basing our ideas of what the RN meant on a table heading? What reliable sources would we use to explain to the reader what the RN meant when they said Spitzbergen? If we find sources that show the RN using Spitzbergen to mean Spitsbergen, or even to mean Svalbard, are we then justified in thinking they meant 'Spitzbergen refuelling convoy' in this case, different from Spitsbergen or Svalbard? Weakopedia (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You say “you don’t mean to disparage my views” and yet you continue to do so.

You have had any number of sources to show that the z spelling was commonplace in British English throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, being used by the British Government, Royal institutions, Navy and Parliament. Also that the term was used indiscriminately to refer to both the island group and its main island. You have also had sources here which refer to naval forces by name using that spelling.

So the only “original research” here is the suggestion that this is all a case of misspelling, or misreading of sources, so it doesn’t really count for anything.

You have the sources here, with page numbers and wording, for the RN task forces; I suggest if you want to contend they were actually called something different you come up with your own reliable source giving a different name. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen. Going back to first principles, Spitsbergen with "s" is apparently the spelling used in both forms of Norwegian (bokmål and nynorsk) for this Norwegian island, while Spitzbergen is the German spelling. I can see no reason why a German spelling would be carried over into English in this case. It would be as illogical as using the Swedish spelling (my native language), Spetsbergen, in English. I also don't think this is a Gdansk/Danzig-type of issue; use the "z" form only in phrases quoted directly from sources using this spelling, and otherwise the "s" form. Tomas e (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As you will see from my reply, I have no doubt that the correct spelling of the place is Spitsbergen in British and American English, however it is not the place to which the article refers, it is a name given to a group of ships. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion, it seems almost clear that the island/group of islands is Spitsbergen and a group of naval ships is named Spitzbergen. Why not settle on that as a general rule, making exceptions as sources (not editors' opinions) demand? Hordaland (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Hordaland)

As to “the island/group of islands is Spitsbergen” there’s another problem right there. One of the comments at the top of this page states “The correct spelling 'Spitsbergen' can apply to both the island and the group as a whole as well”, suggesting we should be following Dutch usage.Is that what those who favour s spelling mean? Because I’m pretty sure when writers in English say "Spitsbergen" they just mean the island, and refer to the group as Svalbard. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Spitsbergen is the largest island in the group collectively named Svalbard. But historically one finds the name Spitsbergen used to refer to the group, so that may occur in some sources. Hordaland (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Horaland, I agree with you except the we should consistently use the spelling Spitsbergen for the place (island or group of islands) regardless of how it is spelled in the source. We should only use the spelling Spitsbergen for the name given to the group of ships referred to in this article. So if a source were to say, 'The Spitzbergen group were sailing towards Spitzbergen' we would write, 'The Spitzbergen group were sailing towards Spitsbergen'. It may seem odd but it is the correct thing to do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Svalbard (sorry, as an "involved editor", for posting here)
It occurs to me there is another way out of this debate; if the spellings here need modernizing, we could render them as Svalbard instead ie “Svalbard reinforcement group” etc. It is a legitimate interpretation, and it sidesteps the whole s/z controversy.
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly we should not do that. Spitzbergen was the name given at the time to the group. We cannot change that here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I’m happy with "Spitz … group” (I wrote it that way, after all); but I get the impression it’s a minority opinion. Of course we could always have "Sval...group" with the footnote "officially called Spz group" etc...Xyl 54 (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I still prefer just using the name originally given with a note explaining the reason that it spelled in that particular way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think that we should not rewrite history. This means using correct historical place names where appropriate (Salisbury, Calcutta, Bombay etc) and not their modern equivalents (Harare, Kolkata, Mumbai) when discussing historic events. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, 'Spitz...' for the historical name of the group, 'Spits...' for everything else. To build on your example, if one of the ships had been called 'HMS Bombay', no one would be suggesting that we call it 'HMS Mumbai'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Alphabetical Notes

To what do the alphabetical notes "f" and "g", under the "Notes" column for practically every ship refer? Normally, unexplained material like this is clear evidence of "copy and paste", and therefore of copyright violation. I look forward to the notes being explained or deleted. HLGallon (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation? how do you work that out? they are space fillers. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, you are probably right. However, there are better ways of providing filler text. Look at SS Afrikander, at the top of the list, for a better, invisible method. I see rather too many articles with clear indications of HTML from web pages embedded (or even email headers), and probably foam too readily at the mouth. HLGallon (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That way of doing it is better; I would probably just have put dots in if I'd ever got round to it. Anyway, it's done now... Xyl 54 (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Beauregard

I think I've pinned her down. This webpage in Russian gives a GRT of 5,976 and 1920 as the year of building. This is the relevant page of Lloyd's Register with her details. Mjroots (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right: Ruegg & Hague's book (I've added it to the article) lists the same convoys as your Russian source for Beauregard (though they don't give tonnage/year of construction for her). Interesting sources you've found there, BTW; very useful. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Imported Lead and Aftermath sections from Convoy PQ 18. Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Added table showing convoy formation and infobox from Convoy PQ 18. Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)