This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It has long been my understanding that an encyclopedia presents facts, rather than viewpoints or assertions or informal "agreements" among a few individual contributors. Why then are Norwegian navy ships that were not in active service in 1946 or thereafter persistently shown here with the prefix HNoMS? Firstly, this is an incorrect translation of the Norwegian KNM which stands for Kongelige Norske Marine or Royal Norwegian Navy. Secondly, and more importantly, this prefix was, as is my understanding, introduced only in 1946, see for example the statement on the Norwegian Wiki-page https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_over_den_Kongelige_Norske_Marines_skip. If this matter was discussed somewhere in the Wiki-framework, where? And if it was, why did it apparently result in an obviously faulty outcome. --Cosal (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Well. Yes. Your understanding is correct to a certain point, although WP:Consensus is the main principle here. Consensus, or "agreement" as you seem to call it. Furthermore: (1.) HNoMS is not a "translation" of KNM. It is the English prefix for Norwegian naval ships, which (2.) was first used during the war, and is tied to KNM mostly in that a Norwegian version was created in 1946. Also, what other wikis do, is irrelevant. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
And is what the Norwegian navy does also irrelevant? because a Wiki-consensus overrides it? If that is so it is a sad commentary on the reliability of Wiki a serious source of information. --Cosal (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't really understand what you mean by "what the Norwegian navy does". In English-language contexts the Royal Norwegian Navy uses HNoMS. I have done some research over at Google Books, and the results clearly show that "His Norwegian Majesty's Ship" (HNoMS or HNMS) has been in use in English-language texts since at least 1896/1899, as well as during the Second World War (1942, 1944, 1944, 1945 and 1945). The last of those links is by the Royal Norwegian Government Information Office, so the Norwegians used HNoMS in English-language contexts too, pre-1946. This clearly demonstrates the pre-1946 (even pre-1900) use of His Norwegian Majesty's Ship for vessels of the Royal Norwegian Navy in English-language sources. Manxruler (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
