Talk:French destroyer Le Fantasque

Cruisers or destroyers?

Re: this debate. Most publications I've seen list this class as destroyers & don't list them as cruisers. However, because of their strong armament, the Allies listed them as light cruisers for operational use. Folks at 137 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything starts with the treaty of Washington, which regulated the size and number of cruisers, battleships and such units, but did not impose restrictions on ships like destroyers.

This induced the French (among others) into building large destroyers. The Fantasque series are a typical example.

After they were refitted in the US, the Frantasque and her sister-ships were officially classified as "cruisers" to abide to standards of the Allies, but the classification as a large and over-kill "destroyer" ("contre-torpilleur", actually) was somewhat rethorical in the first place. Rama 11:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says this ship was "was the second destroyer of the Malin class"; can anyone corroborate this? That the class was named for Malin? All the sources for the class (including the French one) refer to them as Le Fantasque, not Malin. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

This page was edited a while ago to remove the definite article from the ship's name. As there was no explanation for this (here or elsewhere) and all the sources refer to her as Le Fantasque, with the definite article, I've edited the page to put it back. If anyone has a verifiable source that supports the name without the definite article, I would be interested to see it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2018

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! 21:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

---

French destroyer Fantasque → French destroyer Le Fantasque – 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) 11:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per COMMONNAME (35,900 Google results for current, 53,800 for proposed.) -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither should get over 2000 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, that is a ship's class name and a WIkipedai disambiguator. No reason to change name to informal name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs)

      Comment written at Talk:French destroyer Triomphant applies here.

      —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:52, 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! 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, no need to deviate from formal base name. - DePiep (talk) 07:55, 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 capricious one", not adjective "capricious"). And we should be very cautious about following sources which are known to be wrong. Davidships (talk) 14:26, 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.