Talk:Soviet submarine K-222/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 2009

• The title of this article should be restored to Papa class submarine. I was not around at the time this change was made (see above), but the topic of this article is a class of submarine, reguardless of how many were constructed. If the activities of a particular submarine are of distinction than it warrants its own article, but this change in title now eliminates the article on the Papa class submarine, and leaves a hole in the index of Soviet submarine articles. Because only one was built it would be acceptable to link the title K-222 to this article, but the title Papa Class submarine is still the correct title in this situation. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move Feb 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-222 → Papa class submarine — Ken keisel says "This is an article about a class of submarine of which there was only one example built, as such it requires a title of the class, with the name of the lone example described in the text. It would be acceptable to link the title "K-222" to an article titled "Papa class submarine", but the article title must reflect the overall class described, not just the name of one partiular member, regardless of weither it is the only one. Please see articles Charlie class submarine and India class submarine for examples."--ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Unique boats in USN service aren't listed as "class" boats, but as individuals (Dolphin, Argonaut, Albacore, frex), which they are. Why should this be different? As for the class list, redirect Papa class here. And that she's the sole member of the class is mentioned in the lead. Where's the problem? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the sole example is the submarine, therefore it should be an article about the submarine, not the theoretical class. The class might qualify for a separate article, but not at the expense of an article on the real thing. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that doesn't mean the other stuff isn't wrong. In single-ship (or boat...) classes, the class name should redirect to the ship page at the ship's name. In addition, "Charlie", "India" and "Papa" classes are all NATO reporting names, so should they be used for page names anyway? WP:COMMONNAME, true, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per 64.229.101.183. It also seems a bit odd to use a NATO reporting name now that we know the actual name of this sub. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• 'Oppose as per Trekphiler. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - unique ships are very rarely given a class article, and they are never represented solely by the class article (see for instance, Admiral class battlecruiser and HMS Hood (51) for an example of how this can be done if a class article is desired). If you want a separate article for the Papa class (I don't know if there's enough material to support it in this case), fine, but there should always be an article on the individual ship. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree There are two issues, a "class" page and an "individual submarine" page. I favor having both but redirecting to "K-222" from a "Papa Class" page. In response to Nick-D, no, we do not now have the "name" of this submarine. We only have the Soviet covername (not a Soviet "class" name) for the design - "Anchar", and the numerical designators K-162 and K-222.Moryak (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The numerical designator is the submarine's name, much like U-505 or HMS E8. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose but from a different angle. It is presumptous and POV to use any name other than the one the creator/owner of the thing gave it. Does your drivers' licence use the nickname the bullies in the 5th grade called you or does it have the name that also appears on your birth certificate? The Soviet Navy never called it the Papa class, neither should we. Roger (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  We don't *always* use the creator's name. If the name the bullies gave you was the one used most often in reliable sources, we might use it for your article title. (To be clear, I am not weighing in on this debate.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted previously, the Russians never called it the Anchar class either. That leaves us with the Russian unique hull identifier which in this case is either K-162 or K-222. Neither of these is very satisfying since we are not at all likely to go back and relabel the NATO named NOVEMBER Class SSN the K-3 Class SSN. Then, of course, we could get together and creat a non-existent name like "Graney" and repeated it enough so that people will think it is correct.Moryak (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Favor - Wikipedia already has guidelines for the naming of aircraft that can function as a guide for boats as well. You can read them at WP:Air/PC. Under names they specify the following:

"Articles should always be named as generally as possible, so an article should only be named after a subtype (e.g. Messerschmitt Bf 109G) if writing about that specific version of the aircraft. Usually this will mean that we already have a more general article about the aircraft, relevant to all subtypes. If no general article exists, it may be worthwhile expanding the article slightly so that it encompasses all variants of the aircraft."

In this case the article should be about the class of boat in order to be as general as possible, with a description of the sole example contained within the body of the article. I don't feel that the boat itself is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS holds that all commissioned warships are notable, and should therefore have their own article. If there is only one article, it should be on the ship (for example, SMS Von der Tann and HMS Tiger are examples of articles on unique vessels and can serve as a template on how this article can be developed). Ships are already covered by an accepted guideline, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS Provides only suggestions for how to use correct grammer in naming an article on ships, it does not suggest that an article on a class of ship with a single example should be titled after the ship, not the class. All other naming guidelines, such as aircraft, recommend that the title use the most general heading (in this case the class of ship) in order to cover the most depth. If another author wishes to write a second article specifically about the operational history of K-222 then that would be possible, but until there is an existing article about the class as a whole there should not be an article only about K-222. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Having an article only about the class and not one about the sole ship is contrary to years of established practice at WP:SHIPS. In the vast majority of cases, there is an article on the ship and not one on the class (again, see SMS Von der Tann - no Von der Tann class battlecruiser, or HMS Tiger - no Tiger class battlecruiser). Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care if the page is named after the individual vessel or the class, as long as the most common English name(s) at least redirect there. The most important issue is that the article is of high quality and can be found by our users. Two pages, one about the class, and one about the individual vessel would seem to fairly ridiculous when it's a class of one. (Hohum ^@) 00:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the current name follows WP:SHIPSs's naming conventions. Also, unless this was a flying submarine, it does not fall within WP:AIR's scope. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Further comment It seems to me Hohum captured the issue. Do we propose 2 pages on this single sub? Both with essentially the same content? Because, as I see it, a page on the class must needs reproduce most of what's here...& that seems pretty silly to me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Unique ships almost never have class articles in addition to the article on the vessel itself; the only example I can think of off the top of my head is Admiral class battlecruiser, the class for HMS Hood (51), though it is itself a fairly unique situation, as the Admiral class as a design is fairly notable. The vast majority of unique ship articles contain the information that would constitute the bulk of a class article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And that's also because there were other Admirals - just cancelled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the real problem we're having here is reaching a consensus on the name of the ship. None of the reference material I have found indicate that the ship was ever actually named. This submarine was originally given only the production number K-162, which was later changed to K-222. No proper name for the ship ever existed. I've taken the time to do a rather exhaustive search of all primairy references sources to see how they identify this bost. Here are the results:

• Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91, Capt. Richard Sharpe RN (ret.), P.584 - "Papa Class (Cruise Missile Submarine)"
• Combat Fleets of the World 1982/83 (French), Jean Labayle Couhat, ISBN 0-87021-125-0 P. 605 - "Papa Class"
• Submarines of the World, Robert Jackson, ISBN 1-58663-294-9, P. 190 - "Papa Class"
• The Illustrated Directory of Submarines of the World, David Miller, ISBN 0-7603-1345-8, P. 394 "Papa Class (Project 661)".

The only mention of any other name was "K-162" given within the text of the article in Jackson's book. It would appear that Western authors have already decided to name this submarine "Papa Class" or occassionally "the Papa", and it is by this name that the submarine is described in all reference literature I have found. I defer to Jane's convention at this point as the standard for the naming of this boat. I would point out that Jane's does list unique boats with proper names by their proper name, but dismisses the use of "K-..." as a proper name for Russian submarines. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

{{subst:move}}