This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Malabar (1804) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
@Acad Ronin: Why did you remove the convict ship categories? The name may have changed, but presumably it was still the same ship when Coromandel took convicts to Tasmania and NSW. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames: I wondered if that would draw a reaction. Reason was that if one is looking for convict ships to Tasmania, especially Coromandel, one would already have to know that Malabar became Coromandel. With the redirect, anyone looking for more info on an ancestor who came on HMS Coromandel (1815) would automatically go to HMS Malabar. The underlying idea is that it was Coromandel that went to Tassy, not Malabar, even though Coromandel used to be Malabar. Leaving the Tassy category at Malabar might also confuse someone who is skimming the category members who would then look in Bateson and others for any report of Malabar and not find it. Does all that make sense? I am completely open to a more creative solution as the problem is a common one. I just prepared an article on Sir Edward Hughes (1784 EIC ship), which went to Tassy as HMS Tortoise. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying idea is that it was Coromandel that went to Tassy, not Malabar ... If we asked the hypothetical question "Should there be separate articles for Malabar and Coromandel?" the answer would surely be "no", because the article is about a physical ship, not the name of a ship - and that physical ship took convicts to NSW and Tasmania, and thus belongs in the categories.
Leaving the Tassy category at Malabar might also confuse someone who is skimming the category members who would then look in Bateson and others for any report of Malabar and not find it. I don't think this is likely to be a problem. Presumably someone skimming the category members and not finding Malabar in some other list would then check the Malabar article, and see that the ship was renamed. This is especially the case if we use bold formatting for the other names, per MOS:BOLDSYN. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
