Talk:Robert C. Pringle

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Robert C. Pringle as Chequamegon

• ... that the tug Robert C. Pringle (pictured) was sunk by an "obstruction"? Significance Through Obscurity: An Agglomeration of Wisconsin's Submerged Archaeological Sites - Page 33
  • ALT1:... that the remarkably intact wreck of the tug Robert C. Pringle (pictured) was discovered in 2008? Significance Through Obscurity: An Agglomeration of Wisconsin's Submerged Archaeological Sites - Page 33

• Reviewed: Christuskirche, Walsdorf
• Comment: Work in progress. Although the page doesn't explicitly state the ship was sunk by a piece of driftwood, it is given as the most likely reason.

Created by GreatLakesShips (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I need to ask someone more au fait with picture requirements to be sure we're not violating copyright by using the postcard pic. MeegsC (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Article was created late on 5 January and nominated early on 13 January according to my computer which is technically eight days (according to my possibly faulty math), but I'm not inclined to reject a hook for being a couple of hours late. Article is just barely long enough (1576 B of prose), reasonably well referenced and written. No indication of copyvio per Earwigs. Two formatting things: Is there a reason why the article is not at Robert C. Pringle? And is it possible to italicize the title?
  for the hook facts, ALT0 should say 'probably sunk' if that's the case. The cited source says the tug struck an obstruction (some reports specified floating driftwood) and filled rapidly is that the same thing as 'probably'? I'm not seeing that there's confusion, the source seems to definitively say that it was sunk. Here's a contemporary newspaper report backing that up. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. I'm not seeing "pristine" in the source for ALT1-- I don't think "remarkably intact" is the same thing.
  Image is suitably licensed (published in 1909) and views fine at reduced size. Waiting on qpq. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I see I edit conflicted on the review-- will leave my comments up but not use it as a QPQ and will defer to MeegsC for final approval. Sorry about that Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: and @Eddie891: Title italicized. The article is called Robert C. Pringle (tug) and not simply Robert C. Pringle because it is named after the owner, and although he doesn't have an article, I believe it is important to distinguish between a person and a ship. There is no confusion on whether the ship sank, the confusion is about what the ship struck. Although, the source states that multiple reports stated it was driftwood, which seems like the most likely scenario. Hook and article changed from "pristine" to "remarkably intact".GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips thanks for updating; I'd recommend that you remove the "submerged" from your quotation above as the source only says "obstruction". I think I confused things when I said "article" in my comment above. I meant the Wikipedia article. I'd recommend you remove "submerged" from that article too, unless you have another source that you could use for that fact — particularly since some reports say floating driftwood! ;) By the way, just FYI, none of the sfn footnote links to the sources are working. MeegsC (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: Footnotes no longer an issue. Should I replace "submerged" with "floating", or should I get rid of it completely? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips, this is fine — though it would also be fine if you wanted to add "(possibly floating driftwood)", since the source says that. Just waiting on a QPQ now.

@MeegsC: QPQ done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This one's ready to go then! MeegsC (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article isn't remotely ready as it consists only of a lead section and a design and construction section; the rest consists only of unexpanded headers, which is a clear violation of supplementary rule D7. The article must be completed to a reasonable standard before it can be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Is there a deadline for me to sufficiently expand the article? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips, I don't think we've ever set a deadline because most people don't nominate their articles until they are complete. But I think you should finish it in a reasonable amount of time after you've nominated it. Could you get it done within the next couple of weeks? Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I think so. I really depends on how much time I have. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Gatoclass; this is not what the article looked like when I reviewed it! MeegsC (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that MeegsC, thanks for the clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC:@Gatoclass: Article completed. GreatLakesShips (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Is the article good to go? 22:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Gatoclass because I don't think the last one from GreatLakesShips went through. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did get the ping SL93, but didn't comment because it's MeegsC's review. The article certainly looks fine to me now, but Meegs is the one who should be completing the review. Gatoclass (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC Please return to the review. SL93 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

SL93 – sorry, I'm pretty new at this "revisiting" stuff. When I passed the article, it was fine. I didn't realize I was responsible for keeping tabs on it for the rest of its existence! In my expanded examination, here's what I found:

• Close paraphrasing in at least one area: Our article No expense was spared in fitting her out.[10] Her cabins contained oak woodwork, and upholstered furniture throughout. Source material: no expense was spared in fitting her out. Her cabins were finished with oak woodwork and upholstered furniture was placed throughout.
• Interestingly there's also a discrepancy: Our article Chequamegon had two decks, a single mast, and a round stern. Source material: The vessel was described as a screw steamer built of wood with two decks, no masts, a plain head, and rounded stern.
• Some copyediting needed on the sentence Scheduled to be moved to Milwaukee in 1904, she made her final trip was made on May 21, 1904, between Ashland and Washburn; she arrived in Milwaukee the day after her final trip.

I guess I'd need to see these issues sorted before passing. MeegsC (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: Sorry about that. The issues are all fixed now. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips, I found one more thing (though I'll approve it now anyway): "She she was issued a temporary enrollment on June 13, 1903..."

SL93, this is again good to go. Hopefully for the last time! ;) MeegsC (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC can you check this modified hook? Joofjoof (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1a:... that the tugboat Robert C. Pringle (pictured) was discovered "remarkably intact" 86 years after it sank? Significance Through Obscurity: An Agglomeration of Wisconsin's Submerged Archaeological Sites - Page 33

Joofjoof: Yes, this is fine. MeegsC (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, restoring tick. Joofjoof (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert C. Pringle (tug)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Saltymagnolia (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Saltymagnolia, I'll take this review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

Lead

• In general, this article is short enough that I think the four lead paragraphs can be consolidated into two. However, the lead length is fine per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
• Para 1: "Robert C. Pringle, originally named Chequamegon, was a wooden-hulled American tugboat that sank without loss of life on Lake Michigan, near Sheboygan, Wisconsin, on June 19, 1922, after striking an obstruction, possibly floating driftwood." - This sentence is a bit long. Maybe split it into two sentences?
• Para 2: "She was built for the newly formed Chequamegon Bay Transportation Company of Ashland, Wisconsin, under whom she hauled freight between Ashland, Bayfield, Washburn and Madeline Island." - Usually "whom" is used for people, so maybe you can instead use "under which".
• Para 2: "Between 1904 and 1918, she was sold multiple times, and was renamed Pere Marquette 7 in 1911" - For parallelism, I suggest "She was sold multiple times between 1904 and 1918, and was renamed Pere Marquette 7 in 1911."
• Para 3: "and began taking on water fast." - I suggest "rapidly", rather than "fast", as more formal and encyclopedic in tone.
• Para 3: "All of the crewmen were delivered safely to Manitowoc." - No need for "of the" here. "All crewmen were delivered safely to Manitowoc" is concise and says exactly the same thing.
• Para 4: The body doesn't say summer 2019, though this should probably be changed anyway per MOS:SEASON.
• Para 4: "the Wisconsin Historical Society, who described the wreck as "remarkably intact"." - I would say "which" rather than "who" for a similar reason to what I mentioned above for "...under whom she hauled freight...".

• Y All done.

Design and construction

• Para 1: "Robert C. Pringle (Official number 127764) was built as Chequamegon in 1903, by the Manitowoc Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company" - The comma after the year is unnecessary
• Para 1: "The first vessel built by the newly established shipyard, she was launched at 3:06 p.m. on May 9, 1903, as hull number #1." - "hull number #1" is redundant; it should be "hull number 1" or "hull #1".
• Para 1: "Chequamegon's wooden hull was 101 feet (30.8 m) in length, 22.33 feet (6.8 m) (or 22.4 feet, 6.8 m) wide, and 9.50 feet (2.90 m) (or 9.6 feet, 2.9 m) deep." - Given the measurements are almost identical, maybe something like Chequamegon's wooden hull was 101 feet (30.8 m) in length, 22.33 or 22.4 feet (6.81 or 6.83 m) wide, and 9.50 or 9.60 feet (2.90 or 2.93 m) deep. might work. Either that, or the parenthetical should be explained - why is one measurement in parentheses and the other not?
• Para 2: "A single 10.5-by-11-foot (3.2 by 3.4 m) 175 pounds per square inch (1,210 kPa) Scotch marine boiler supplied the engine with steam." - To avoid juxtaposing different units of measurement, I suggest "A single 10.5-by-11-foot (3.2 by 3.4 m) Scotch marine boiler, rated at 175 pounds per square inch (1,210 kPa), supplied the engine with steam."
• Para 2: "The engine was manufactured in Montague, Michigan, by the Montague Iron Works, while her boiler was manufactured in Ferrysburg, Michigan, by the Johnson Brothers Company." - Since there is no contrast being made here, I suggest replacing "while" with "and".
• Do we know the vessel's capacity, if that's relevant?

• Y All done, including the addition of the initial passenger capacity.

Service history:

• Para 1: " Ashland, Wisconsin, Bayfield, Wisconsin, Washburn, Wisconsin and Madeline Island" - Since Wisconsin is not an individual town in the list, I normally would suggest separating each town with semicolons, e.g. "Ashland, Wisconsin; Bayfield, Wisconsin; Washburn, Wisconsin; and Madeline Island". As all of these are in Wisconsin, I'd remove the state and just mention Wisconsin at the end, e.g. "Ashland, Bayfield, Washburn and Madeline Island, all in Wisconsin".
• Para 1: "She was issued a temporary enrollment on June 13, 1903, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and on June 23, she was issued a permanent enrollment at Marquette, Michigan." - For conciseness and parallelism, I suggest "She was issued a temporary enrollment on June 13, 1903, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a permanent enrollment on June 23 at Marquette, Michigan."
• Para 1: "In the middle of September, her trips to Madeline Island were discontinued, and she was moved to Duluth, Minnesota, where she was fitted with a new propeller in order to improve her speed. " - "In order" is unnecessary.
• Para 1: "Scheduled to be moved to Milwaukee in 1904, she made her final trip on May 21, 1904, between Ashland and Washburn, arriving in Milwaukee the day after her final trip." - The second "1904" is unnecessary.
• Para 1: "When Louis A. Cartier, president of the Chequamegon Bay Transportation Company moved to Ludington, Michigan," - A comma is needed after "company", since president of the Chequamegon Bay Transportation Company is a parenthesis (rhetoric).
• Para 1: "In June of that same year" - "Same" is unnecessary when talking about something "that year". In fact, you can just say "That June".
• Para 1: "In that same year, she was taken to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, where she received a new 9.5 feet (2.9 m) propeller, built by H.G. Trout & Company of Buffalo, New York." - "Same" is unnecessary. "9.5 feet" should be changed to "9.5-foot"; you can do this by adding |adj=on to {{convert}}.
• Para 1: "On August 18, 1909, Chequamegon's cook, Sanford M. Silver drowned" - A comma is needed after "Silver", since his name is a parenthesis (rhetoric).
• Para 2: "In 1911, Chequamegon was sold to the Pere Marquette Line of Steamers. Her name was changed to Pere Marquette 7 on January 30." - For concision, I suggest "In 1911, the Chequamegon was sold to the Pere Marquette Line of Steamers and was renamed Pere Marquette 7 on January 30."
• Para 2: "She was converted to a tugboat in Sandusky, Ohio, and had her home port changed to Fairport, Ohio. She towed barges in the Lake Erie coal trade. " - If these two are related, I suggest combining the sentences.

• Y All done.

• On a side note, that is a lot of ownership changes for such a short-lived vessel.

• This was somewhat of a common occurrence among smaller, particularly wooden vessels on the Great Lakes. Seldom have I encountered examples of larger (300+ foot) steel vessels being sold more than three times.

Final voyage:

• "As Venezuela required significant repairs, Robert C. Pringle was dispatched to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in order to tow Venezuela" - "In order" is unnecessary.
• "At around 2:00 a.m. on the following day, as Robert C. Pringle and Venezuela were passing Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Robert C. Pringle struck an obstruction (possibly floating driftwood), and began taking on water fast." - I suggest "rapidly" instead of "fast" per the above.
• "She sank in ten minutes, with all her crew being rescued by Venezuela, who dropped her crew off in Milwaukee." - I'd change "who" to "which" per the above.
• "After she sank, there was speculation that Robert C. Pringle sank because of a weakness in her hull due to her age." - Is there a way to avoid repeating "sink"?

• Y All done.

Robert C. Pringle wreck

• "Wisconsin Historical Society" is linked twice.
• "Her pilothouse, along with the glass in four of its windows, remains in place." - Was the glass in the pilothouse (I'm assuming so because it doesn't use the pronoun "her" like the ship does)? If so, I suggest "Her pilothouse, including the glass in four of its windows, remains in place."
• "Robert C. Pringle's triple expansion engine still has gold lettering on it." - I suggest "The Robert C. Pringle's triple expansion engine still retains gold lettering."
• Can the NRHP listing from 2020 be mentioned? It's in the infobox but never elaborated upon in the body.

– Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Y All done.

References

@Saltymagnolia, before I do the spot check, I noticed that much of the article is cited to a single source:

• Wisconsin Historical Society (2020). "Significance Through Obscurity: An Agglomeration of Wisconsin's Submerged Archaeological Sites" (PDF). Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Historical Society. Retrieved January 6, 2021.

This could be okay if this is the only source available for the topic, but I wanted to verify that is the case.

Spot checks, with ref numbers as of this revision:

• Ref 3 (Wisconsin Historical Society (2020), p. 20.) - Checks out.
• Ref 6 (Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library (2020). "Chequamegon (1903, Excursion Vessel)". Alpena, Michigan: Alpena County George N. Fletcher Public Library. Retrieved January 6, 2021.) - Checks out.
• Ref 8 (Wisconsin Historical Society (2020), p. 21.) - Checks out.
• Ref 15 (Wisconsin Historical Society (2020), p. 28.) - Checks out.
• Ref 18 (Wisconsin Historical Society (2020), p. 33.) - Checks out.

– Epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• The actual WHS document references multiple primary sources. While they could theoretically be included in the article, they would create unnecessary bloat. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 14:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Images and copyright

• The single image is appropriately licensed.
• https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1306549385&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisconsinshipwrecks.org%2FVessel%2FDetails%2F534%3Fregion%3DIndex Earwig] does detect a bit of a match with the sentence "In 1918, Pere Marquette 7 was sold to the Pringle Barge Line of Cleveland, Ohio."

However, upon a second look, I did see an instance of close paraphrasing:

Caption text

Article text	Original source text	Source cited
Robert C. Pringle was dispatched to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in order to tow Venezuela to Sandusky, Ohio, where the repairs were scheduled to be made. The vessels departed Milwaukee at around midnight on June 18, with Robert C. Pringle under the command of Captain Martin Oglesbee. At around 2:00 a.m. on the following day, as Robert C. Pringle and Venezuela were passing Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Robert C. Pringle struck an obstruction (possibly floating driftwood), and began taking on water fast.	Robert C. Pringle was sent to Milwaukee to tow the vessel to Sandusky where extensive repairs were to be made. The tug and its tow departed Milwaukee on the night of 18 June. As they passed Sheboygan around 2 AM, the tug struck an obstruction (some reports specified floating driftwood) and filled rapidly.	Wisconsin Historical Society (2020), p. 33.

This should be fixed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: that should be everything. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 14:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Great. I'll take another look tomorrow or Monday. Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius could you please take a look? ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 10:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I will get around to it when I can. I apologize for the delay, I was at the WikiConference this weekend and couldn't do much. Epicgenius (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not find any other issues on a second look. Passing. Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The arguments mostly surrounded the application of WP:PRECISE here. Opposition was based on the similarity of the boat's name to a person, leading to potential reader confusion. Support was based on the fact that there is no ambiguity to be resolved as this is the only article by this name. The numerical support and longstanding precedent is on the side of moving the article. WP:PRECISE and the related WP:DAB both say that disambiguation is done when one term might refer to two or more Wikipedia articles, and as they're the policy-and-guideline support that allows parenthetical disambiguation in the first place, this aligns with the majority's argument and the longstanding precedent of WP:MISPLACED. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Robert C. Pringle (tug) → Robert C. Pringle – There is no other topic with the name Robert C. Pringle (including the ship's namesake) covered on Wikipedia, so the article should exist at the base name rather than have parenthetial disambiguation. The current situation of having the base name redirect to the disambiguated title is WP:MISPLACED. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This is just misleading. The ship is about a vessel, not a person, something the current title reflects. The proposed title is misleading. The removal of any qualifiers only makes any sense when the topic is universally understood, i. e. Titanic. Wikipedia contains numerous articles using a similar system, something which has been accepted for years.

If we are to go down this route, should we also start removing prefixes such as SS or MV, from ship articles covering lone topics?

The current title also somewhat conforms to the official NRHP designation of the site.

Also, in the interest of the WP:MISPLACED point, the redirect was a result of a reverted move from years earlier. That redirect should be deleted instead. Akaza ^[talk] 22:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Addendum, the Pringle Barge Line was itself a significant (and possibly notable) company on the Great Lakes. Creating a separate entry would also make sense. Akaza ^[talk] 02:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom, if there's no other page with the name then what's the point of disambiguating?--Ortizesp (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  The proposed page name carries the false implication that this article covers a person. If we go down this route, are we also to remove every single prefix from articles covering a ship with a namesake not mentioned here? Akaza ^[talk] 02:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes? Plenty of things are named after humans without additional disambiguators. Ortizesp (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment in regards to ship prefixes, I strongly favor use of ship prefixes as they offer WP:NATURAL disambiguation, in cases where the ship name usually includes the prefix. In this case, it seems like the common form of the name lacks a prefix, even though it was a steamship. Regardless, the justification for this proposed move does not at all suggest ship prefixes should be removed from titles of other ships. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot see any situation in which this change would be advantageous to the reader, or the current title is disadvantageous to the reader. Whatever theorising there may be, based on Wikipedia rules, guidance or custom that suggests otherwise needs revising. (It is, of course, the readers of this encyclopedia that we serve.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:PRECISE is very clear that article titles should "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that" (emphasis mine). There is no other article with the name Robert C. Pringle on Wikipedia (presumably the individual after whom the boat is named is non-notable), therefore the disambiguation is unnecessary. The original bold move should not have been reverted really, as this is very clear cut - policy favours the proposed name. There are also other examples of entities that aren't people having titles that look like human names, e.g. Jenny Haniver, Alice Springs, Nigel Creek to name a few. I see no reason why such titles would confuse readers and disambiguation policy does not require us to cater for such nonexistent confusion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  The examples listed only vaguely approximate human names, while boats like this are named after actual people. This is yet another case where the existing policy falls short and contradicts itself, considering the current title is, by virtue of the disambig more precise, as it defines the scope of the content much better than the proposed one. And as I said above, the proposed title does imply the article concerns a person. Akaza ^[talk] 16:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  The policy does not "fall short" or "contradict itself" at all, it is very clear on this matter. We don't disambiguate more than is necessary. If you don't like the policy, then I suggest you start an RFC at WT:AT with your proposed changes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment My read of WP:PRECISE takes me to the opposite conclusion. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  @ThoughtIdRetired glad I'm not the only one. I think ships (or indeed any other inanimate objects named after a person) should be treated as special cases. Akaza ^[talk] 16:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree completely. If the human they're named after is not significant enough to have a page, then there's no point disambiguating. Ortizesp (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - supporters of the move appear to be glossing over the fact that while WP:PRECISE does specify that disambiguators should not be used if there are no other articles with that name, the title should "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". I contend that the average reader, upon seeing a page titled "Robert C. Pringle", would assume it to be about a person with that name, not a tugboat. Does the average reader understand the significance of the italicized title? Likely not, in the age of stylized names. I think keeping the (tug) on this article does more good than harm. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  This argument would be more convincing if the disambiguator was (boat), I am doubtful the average reader would understand the significance of (tug) without already knowing the context. CMD (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be more than happy with the dab being "boat" (or perhaps even better, "tugboat"). Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE. We don't use disambiguators when there is nothing to disambiguate from. The fact that Robert C. Pringle looks like a person's name is immaterial. The same is true of e.g. Adam Bede, and yet we don't feel the need to title the article Adam Bede (book) just in case someone assumes that it's about a person. Zacwill (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • It's not immaterial, though, since it's half of the policy being cited in favor of the move. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument either. If you want to make the argument that the un-disambiguated title unambiguously defines the scope of the article, then make that argument. Parsecboy (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

    There is no policy that says something that "looks like a person's name" should be treated as a special case. WP:PRECISE fully supports the move, because there are no other topics to disambiguate against. It's also trivially the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, again because nothing else of that name is notable. If we followed your logic then almost no article would be titled without a qualifier. There are countless non-notable people called Tony Blair for example, yet we don't feel the need to add disambiguators there. This move is fully supported by article title policy.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a suggestion to treat something as a "special case"; it's directly in the policy. As for your counter-example, that's an orange to this apple. The average English speaker will assume Tony Blair to be about a person, even if they're unfamiliar with the former PM. A better example would be, let's say there's a notable boat named My mom's world-famous chili recipe. What do you think the average person would think that article is about? Do you think they'd look at the title and expect to read something about a boat? Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. These is no good reason to deviate from WP:PRECISE. I do not believe the contention that readers would be confused: those that are looking for a tug of that name will not eschew visiting the page just because it doesn't have "(tug)"; and those looking for the person will benefit from a visit as they will learn that he was connected to a tug company, Pringle Barge Line, of Mentor, Ohio. - Davidships (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. No other article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Just because an article's title seems like a human name does not mean we keep the disambiguator if it's the only article with that name. As Amakuru said above, there are plenty of article titles that seem human but are actually something else. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.