Talk:HMS Empire Battleaxe

Requested move

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
HMS Donovan (F161) → HMS Empire Battleaxe — The majority of this ships' Naval service was under the name HMS Empire Battleaxe, not HMS Donovan — Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per nom. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support likewise per nom. YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Wouldn't just "Empire Battleaxe" be more appropriate, since it would cover her career both with the Navy and in much of her commercial service? Gatoclass (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Using just Empire Battleaxe is against the convention for naming ship articles. Doing so would imply that she was a sailing ship, like Empire Sandy. Her most notable service was as HMS Empire Battleaxe, which is why I've requested the move to that title. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think SS Empire Battleaxe would be best because it was the name under which she was known for 20 of her 26 years, including about half (one of the two paragraphs) of the notable wartime service (the other notable half under HMS Empire Battleaxe) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, but from 1947 to 1966 she seems to have spent the entire time laid up. Hardly active commercial service, is it? Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. But as long as it's under some form of Empire Battleaxe I have no problem with whatever name selected. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2009 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Empire Battleaxe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519070241/http://www.anzac.dpc.wa.gov.au/documents/stories/nions_ah_20050316.pdf to http://www.anzac.dpc.wa.gov.au/documents/stories/nions_ah_20050316.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)