# Talk:Italian battleship Duilio

While I admit it's an inconsistency on the part of the Italian Regia Marina and the Marina Militare Italiana, this ship was not named "Caio Duilio", its name was just "Duilio".
I have recently uncovered a document that proves beyond doubt what I'm saying. Namely, the Royal Decree (Decreto Reale) 16 November 1911, n. 1269, in which the name of her and her sister (then being built) were officially assigned names to be put in the registries of the Navy. And the name cited for her isn't Caio Duilio, but just Duilio.
Here is a link to the full text of the aforementioned decree.
I'll put here a (rough) translation of it:
VITTORIO EMANUELE III
by the grace of God and the will of the nation
KING OF ITALY
As suggested by the Minister of the Navy
We have decreed and decree
To the two 1st Class battleships being built in the Royal Arsenal of La Spezia and in the Royal Shipyard of Castellammare di Stabia, are respectively assigned the names of
Andrea Doria and Duilio.
With such names the aforementioned battleship will be put in the registries of the statal ships.
We order that the present decree, with the Seal of the State, be inserted in the official archive of the laws and the decrees of the Kingdom of Italy, ordering anybody to observe and respect it.
Signed at Rome, today 16 November 1911
VITTORIO EMANUELE
Leonardi - Cattolica
Seen, the Keeper of the Seals: Finocchiaro-Aprile
[Note: Pasquale Leonardi-Cattolica was Minister of the Navy, and Camillo Finocchiaro-Aprile was the Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals]
I believe the case to be proven, and therefore request the name of the ship and the page to be corrected accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italianhistorian88 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 

What you have is a primary source, and while it may be the royal decree, there's no proof that the ship that was launched actually had that name. Contemporary publications (like the March 1918 volume of The Engineer) use Caio Duilio, and expert Italian historians like Bagnasco & De Toro refer to the ship the same way. Wikipedia generally follows what secondary sources say, and most say the ship's name was Caio Duilio. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I wish to state that I believe that the decree I cited (which, in Italy, had the force of law when issued) is proof enough that that was indeed the name of the ship in question, and that, while I acknowledge that the issue is difficult as custom proved to be inconsistent, it should be considered stronger than any secondary source that mention the wrong name; also, there are numerous pictures of the ship with the name engraved, and all spell "Duilio" (and cross-referencing with its sister ship and ships of the Conte di Cavour-class prove that the lack of "Caio" is not due to any space constraint), which further reinforce the points. In any case, I am aware that any attempt on my part to edit the page accordingly would be reversed as were the others I tried before, which were done with dubious logic and reasons, therefore I will not do so, nor will I try in the future to edit any article of an Italian warship, even in the face of erroneous or misleading information, as these events have discouraged me in that matter.Italianhistorian88 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The point is, things can change between the issuance of the decree in 1911 and the launching. And I defer to experts such as Bagnasco & De Toro and Aldo Fraccaroli. I'd also point out that if you look at the MM's website, they use the full name. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Since it has been brought to my attention, I would like to point out that some of the experts (Erminio Bagnasco and Augusto De Toro) that were cited have apparently come to an identical conclusion, since the upcoming book that will be published in April 2021 on the older Italian dreadnought classes (following the similar one on the Littorio-class) in the very title speaks not of a 'Caio Duilio'-class, but a 'Duilio'-class. Also, the Italian-speaking language page on the battleship has adopted a similar step, recognizing that the name of the ship was not the one often cited. Italianhistorian88 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add my support for changing the name of the ship (and class) to just 'Duilio'. Bagnasco & De Toro refer to the ship as 'Duilio' only throughout the text. The only mention of 'Caio Duilio' is in the bibliography, where a work published in 1972 is cited, and in the index, as shown in the google books link above. But if you go to any page references under 'Caio Duilio', the ship is called just Duilio. For example, one photo is captioned "Duilio photographed on 13 August 1932" and another reference is "... the serious damage suffered at Taranto in November 1940 by the Conte di Cavour and Duilio, each hit by an explosion of this type". I would suggest the reference to 'Caio Duilio' in the index is simply acknowledgement of the historiography. When added to the royal decree of 1911 and photographs of the ship saying just 'Duilio' on the hull, I believe this is a comprehensive argument for the change. It is certainly a more convincing argument than a single reference in 'The Engineer', a magazine published in London some 5 years after the ship's launch. Furthermore, the MM website does not explicitly call the ship by 'Caio Duilio'. The reference is to the modern destroyer being the fourth ship to "adopt this historic name". There have been four ships named after Caio Duilio, it just so happens that the second one did not use the 'Caio' part of the name, and as subsequent ships used the full name historians and enthusiasts have assumed the old battleship did as well. However, it is clear that this is not the case. Mattzo12 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I too wish to support this. I would also note that the stance of Bagnasco is rather clear on this, too, as in his recent two-part Storia Militare Dossier on the Conte di Cavour and Duilio-class battleships (January and March issues) with Augusto de Toro, the battleships is once more exclusively referred to as Duilio in the text. I would also note that Le Navi di Linea Italiane (2nd Edition, 1966), by Giorgio Giorgerini and Augusto Nani, also exclusively refers to the battleship as Duilio (while their counterpart book on Italian cruisers refers to the guided missile cruiser as Caio Duilio, as it was the first ship to adopt the full name). Said book had as its reviser Admiral Aldo Cocchia, whom I'm sure needs no introduction. --Phoenix jz (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I find it curious that two individuals, one of whom has never edited Wikipedia before, have stumbled across this rather obscure article to comment on the name of the ship in the span of eight hours. Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It would be rather curious if said stumbling had been random, but as I'm sure you've guessed, it is not. We happened to have a discussion on it elsewhere, so we were very plainly on the same page in terms of opinion. The fact we both posted is mainly due to the fact that Mattzo decided to do so, which I was aware of, and I decided independently to back up his point since I had several other relevant sources. That being said, I don't think much of that (the how) is especially relevant - the point is, there are a wealth of authoritative secondary sources that underline the fact the ship was indeed named Duilio, and not Caio Duilio. Considering the primary source given above, and the rather plain opinion of some the most authoritative secondary sources when it comes to Italian capital ships, I think the argument for having the ship named Duilio on the article is much stronger than to keep it as Caio Duilio. --Phoenix jz (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Not to beat the dead horse, but I thought it would be relevant to note that Bagnasco & de Toro have weighed in on the name issue in their new book on the class Italian Battleships Conte di Cavour and Duilio Classes  1911-1956. On page 27 of the book they directly state that the "as with the famous 1876 battleship, the name Duilio was not preceded by the proper prefix Caio, as applied to all successive ships of that name." The volume also exclusively refers to the battleships as Duilio. I hope this is sufficient evidence that many of the most high-profile experts on the Italian navy (Bagnasco, Brescia, de Toro) consider the ship's name to be Duilio and Duilio alone, rather than Caio Duilio? Phoenix jz (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Bagnasco's and de Toro's new book is the authoritative resource on these ships in English, so it's probably best to follow their lead. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)