Talk:Soviet submarine K-222

message: According to WP:SHIPPRONOUN, "each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively." The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), as well as the style books of the Associated Press and the New York Times, recommend using "it" or "its" to refer to ships. The first reference to the ship in the article, "It was the world's fastest submarine," uses "it" rather than "she". I am improving the article's consistency.
Talib1101 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The established usage in this article was "she/her" but was partially changed by an IP editor on 14 July 2020 to "it" in contravention of WP:SHE4SHIPS. Therefore the correct action is to revert it all back to the feminine Lyndaship (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually first used "it" and then introduced "she" (without removing "it) in this diff. Talib1101 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: See also one of the sources referenced: "'The government ordered the scrapping. The submarine disposal is unique, the same as the submarine itself. The sub is being scrapped with fuel inside,' a source at the Severodvinsk administration told Interfax." Talib1101 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: First, issues related to article content should be discussed on the article talk page (which is is also clearly posted at the top of my tp). As there was alreasy a current, active discussion, there was certainly no need to split the discussion between here and there. Just say whay you have to say here like everybody else has. Second, you don't disrupt articles to make a point. Changing every single reference to the boat to "it" just makes the page look consistently silly. It's better to mix it up, using the name of the boat (eg"K-222"), along with "the vessel" and "the boat"/"the ship" (where applicable) along with consistent pronouns such as "she" and "her". This is better then just solely and repeatedly using "it"... "it" was here, then "it" was there, then "it" did this after "it" did that, then "it" loaded "its" torpedos into "its" tubes while enagaging "its" enemy, etc., etc. Lastly, I wasn't just "simply reverting your edit", I reverted back to 's edit, which you had reverted, again to make a point. I didn't edit for hours after that (as RL came up), then only made a few edits (then RL came up again), I then came back to finish checking the article, only to find you had reverted, yet again. (You need to be wary of edit warring.) I would suggest you seek consensus before disrupting the article any further. - wolf 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't seem that you're intent on following policy, but on enforcing your preference for a variant use of English. The original article used "it" more than "she" and I was editing it for consistency. But, because I am outnumbered, "it" was removed for consistency instead, and "she" preserved. The MOS has no preference for "she" over "it", but it seems that certain editors interested in ships do. I edited the article for consistency, and it was my edits that were originally reverted. Talib1101 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: See MOS:RETAIN "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Depending on what you think of as a stub, see the first daft, the first subsequent large addition, or the second large addition. In accordance with this, I'd like the edits to be reverted back to my original edit, before this whole thing started. Also note that it is a submarine, not a ship. Talib1101 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Varieties of English" refers to the difference between American and British  English, but that said, consensus is king. I think it's time to let this go. Have a nice day. - wolf 06:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Not ignoring all the effort you put into this page (I appreciate all the work you've done for this whole project), but the original article used both "it" and "she", and there is a consensus here to use the femimine pronouns. - wolf 22:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I flipped everything back to "it" before reading your comment. I really don't care to change it again. If someone else want to do so, I won't object.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm glad you said that. My edit wasn't just a personal preference, but was motivated by several factors; 1) There was a consensus here for fem. pronouns, 2) when the article was first created, both "it" and "she" were used, which is why we're defering to the consensus, 3) Even after your previous series of edits, there were still several fem. pronouns in the article, 4) And even still, after your last series of edits, and as I write this, there are still a half dozen fem. pronouns. 5) When I made my edit earlier to make the article consistent and inline with the consensus, I actually used very few pronouns, instead making small changes to the prose so as to not have to, instead using other constructions. I believe I only added three more to the total. I'm going to restore the consistency from before, and hopefully we can close this. Cheers & Thanks again - wolf 17:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do normally use feminine pronouns so I can't say that I'm not surprised that I missed a few :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship pronouns 

message: @The ed17, is the description of the Soviet government's target as "exceedingly ambitious" based on some reliable source? --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging the article author  as well, but the background section backs that up: "" and on general principle the link "." It's not a peacock word in this context, as the word is being used as a descriptor rather than promotion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The ed17, the article cannot 'back up' itself, and even so, the Background section reads 'very ambitious', not 'exceedingly ambitious'. That adjective might not be a peacock term in the strictest sense, but it's still a form of emphasis that is largely unnecessary, and downright inappropriate unless backed up by RS. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Polmar & Moore state that "the goal of Project of 661 - achieving all of the desired features in a single submarine - would be extremely difficult.", p. 136 I stand by my characterization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Exceedingly ambitious'