The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

HNoMS Thorodd

edit

Created by Andrew Gray (talk). Self nominated at 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Is the article located at the right name, though? Wouldn't HNoMS Thorodd be better, due to her wartime service? Manxruler (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is also common to name ship articles after the name the vessel had when it was lost. This ship was called Thorodd when she sank. Manxruler (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) simply says "best known", rather than "most recent", and I think this one could happily go either way. I came to the article via an intriguing footnote in the Falklands context, so that seemed the most notable aspect to me as of the time of initially drafting it :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm fully aware of that it's best known, not most recent. However, I think that serving during the war as Thorodd, being the home of Sea Dog Bamse (book) as Thorodd and eventually sinking as Thorodd trumps being first ship to carry paying tourists to Antarctica as Fleurus. Anyway, if the article's title is to be SS Fleurus, then a disambiguation is needed, as she was not the only steamship using that name. Manxruler (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As I say, I'm pretty ambivalent on this one - feel free to move it if you feel there's a strong case the other way. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would do that, but seeing as HNoMS Thorodd is already a redirect, I can't. Using requested moves is a rather lengthy process, so I'll go ask an admin. Manxruler (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tweaked the links. Manxruler (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough and long enough. There are only 2 references, but the article seems complete and neutrally written. No close paraphrasing seen in online source. QPQ done. I also prefer ALT1; hook ref verified and cited in line. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)