Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Age of Sail ships named Charlotte

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to List of ships named ''Charlotte''‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Age of Sail ships named Charlotte[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to have been a bad disambiguation page converted into a set index many years ago, but there doesn't seem to be particular interest in it, traffic has always been minute and has only gone down. Is there perhaps a potential to expand it into a coherent story, and about more ships? If not, then it seems to me that Charlotte#Ships and the articles themselves should suffice. --Joy (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Joy (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or just delete. The suggested target is as much as we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it would be an unlikely redirect. The only two ships listed have their own articles, so the details are redundant, and the dab page has a far more complete listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to broader List of ships named ''Charlotte'' to which can be added content from Charlotte (and some other current pages absent from there), as well as other Charlottes not yet covered (there are some French naval ships, a US Civil War blockade runner and a long-lived US coastal passenger steamer, for example). That would provide a much more useful one-stop-shop set index. Davidships (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you draft something like that first? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing the value of having a separate list. What's the value a separate list of ships provides to the readers over just having them listed at the disambiguation page? --Joy (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A set index is not the same as as a disambiguation page - please read WP:SETINDEX. There is some variation in format/content amongst the existing ~7000 articles in Category:Set index articles on ships, but if I were drafting one it might look something like List of ships named Cherokee. - Davidships (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, funny you should mention that, as it says explicitly: Being a set of a specific type means that the members of the set have some characteristic in common, in addition to their similarity of name. What would be this characteristic common to all of these ships named Charlotte? I suppose there's some inherent value in the inclusionist act of listmaking, but it would be nice to have it spelled out, as opposed to this "RTFM noob" attitude. --Joy (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I inadvertently gave the wrong impression, but trying to avoid multiple cut and paste quotes, and I hesitate to answer your question directly. Readers coming to look for information on a ship Caroline are helped better than through a dab, by virtue of more information, and particularly on ships that do not, as yet, have an article of their own or a section in another article - for me, adding a red link suggests that the ship may well meet the criteria for something more specific. All of those, as well as unlinked (black) entries at least point the reader to a reference or two. Most such lists do not attempt to be fully inclusive (there have been well over one hundred ships named Charlotte in the UK alone over the last 200 years), so comprehensivity is naturally tempered by utility and referencing. - Davidships (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose that number of over a hundred sounds like there's much more potential than just +4 or so on top of those that we already have documented. As it is, though, it's just duplicating the disambiguation list without showing that potential, so maybe this should be incubated in the Draft namespace? --Joy (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Doesn't having the same name plus all of them being ships satisfy the "some characteristic in common" criterion? I might note that one of the examples given at WP:SETINDEX is "List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise", which is more specific than David's proposal even though they are also all listed at the dab Enterprise as well. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing, if the type is "ships of the United States" or "Age of Sail ships" then these seem clearly defining, but with just ships I don't know. It's like splitting off a name list into "List of women called Charlotte", somehow it doesn't seem right offhand. --Joy (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Davidships. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disambiguation -- There isn't a particularly good policy upon which to hang any decision for this one, so I thought about how a user would likely interact with Wikipedia. Would it ever occur to a reader to search for 'List of Age of Sail...' or would they start with 'Charlotte'. I think that is exactly where any rational user would start, then might drill down further from there. There is already a Ships section in that Dismb with both ships listed, and a fine home (dependent from that list) for all 200 UK Charlottes at HMS Charlotte, various Royal Navy ships. I'd suggest subheading on both articles for Age of Sail if that seems helpful, but no separate stand-alone lists. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation. NavjotSR (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless title that nobody's ever going to search on and redirect Charlotte (ship) to disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Charlotte (ship) to the dab page. Regardless of this Afd outcome, that's the proper target. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expand per Davidships. There are a lot of ships with that name, many of which would pass notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand per Davidships Lyndaship (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand per Davidships Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.