Talk:Ship prefix

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships).

---

I made List of battleships of the Japanese Navy and based on my knowledge of the Japanese Navy, decided not to add 'IJN' or 'HIJN' prefix. However, if there should be a prefix, I purpose that it be the same one as the Great Britain's, 'HMS' from the historical point. The Japanese Navy was basically modeled after that of the Great Britain as most of teachers came from there. Most of the training and even the point of officers having to buy his daily meals were copied from Great Britain's Navy and it seems fitting and apropriate that the prefix to be copied too. Yes, it's true that a translation of Teikoku Kaigun would be 'Imperial Navy' but I don't think this would have been the prefix as the Great Britain of that time was called 'British Empire' but was never called 'BEN' or 'BIN'. A Japanese Navy ship visited Britain back around 1930s and there might be a news article in the library in Britain with newspaper clipping from that time. Please check, thanks. Revth 15:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Many navies do not have a standard prefix for their ships; e.g., Germany under the Kaiser used "SMS" (and "SMU"), but under Hitler used nothing. I suggest that ships from those navies be disambiguated as [[COUNTRY TYPE NAME) -- e.g., [[Japanese battleship Yamato]] -- rather than by making up an English-language-based abbreviation that was never used by the ship's crew. --the Epopt 18:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Japan issue is also covered at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). It's true that HIJMS is English-based, but its use by Togo shows its hardly a foreign invention the Japanese never heard of, and wouldn't approve of. It's also of long standing at this point, having been in use before WWII in Western naval circles. Noel 12:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If there's only one example usage in all of the volumes of English verbiage written by Japanese in the years from the 1860s to the 1940s, that strongly suggests it's a fluke rather than a pattern. Pre-WWII Western writers were not very good in the cross-cultural awareness department, would have casually assumed British practice as the global standard and not troubled to inquire further. If "HIJMS" really was standard, it should have thousands of uses to cite, and we wouldn't have to be holding up a scrawled note on a postcard as our "proof". Stan 14:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, the Togo one was one I found in a few minutes with a quick web search. That hardly constitutes proof that it's the "only one example". And what's the source for your blithe assumption that pre-WWII British were incapable of cultural sensitivity? Yes, many were - but many were also very perceptive and sensitive observers. Also, this is an English-language encylopaedia, so we call e.g. it "Japan", not "Nippon". The modern "JDS" is definitely therefore not what the Japanese (another "our word") would use, since it uses "J" from "Japanese". If HIJMS is the long-standing Western usage, that counts for something. If Togo thinks it's the appropriate term to use when writing in English, who are we to say we know better? Noel 04:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've done lengthier searches, including in the university library, and come up dry. Nations do have official foreign-language equivalents for their prefixes - Norway and the Netherlands are two obvious examples. You can go to their websites, to Jane's, etc, and get authoritative declarations of preferred English-language prefix. Conversely, I have 15 volumes of Morison, who talks about hundreds of Japanese ships and never once uses "HIJMS" even when it would be extremely convenient, and my other books do likewise. At this point I'm wondering if maybe it's like an urban legend or something. Who's the earliest writer known to have used the prefix? Stan 05:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

TS is missing, which leaves out turbine steamers like the TS Queen Mary - the tables look scary to edit, but could someone who knows how to edit it please add this. - dave souza 21:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Italian 'Regia Marina'

The Italian Regia Marina adopted the 'R.N.' (Regia Nave) prefix for its ships, and 'R.S.' (Regio Sottomarino) for its submarines. Should this prefixes be included in the table? Any objections? As an example, see the page for the RN Leonardo da Vinci (http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bk/MuseoLaSpezia/RN%20Leonardo%20da%20Vinci/) in La Spezia. --Panairjdde 13:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have an official reference that confirms this? I note that the Marina Militare's own database of Italian ships [1] (http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/Almanacco/Navi000.htm) contains no ship prefixes. Gdr 01:02, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Auxilliary Vessel, Motor-Sailor

An auxilliary vessel is a civilian sailing craft with an internal permanently mounted engine used primarily for in-port maneuvering. On some vessel documents they are refered to as AV Vessel Name.

Similarly, Motor-sailors are sailing craft designed primarily to sail with the motor running, and are occasionally (more rarely) referred as MS Vessel Name.

I'm getting more info from the U.S. Coast Guard, and as soon as I have the specifics from the federal registry I will update the article. - Amgine 23:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)