Talk:Patrol Boat, River#Requested move 16 June 2025

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: not moved. Pretty clear consensus against the move, and against an alternative proposal of Riverine. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 19:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol Boat, River → River patrol boatRiver patrol boat – As the lead is currently written, it's about the Army designation, not about the boat. In books about these things and their use in Vietnam, the term river patrol boat is way more commonly used (and it's currently a redirect to here, per clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT status of the term). The article would be better if titled by what the thing is actually called, and then mention the official PBR designation in the lead sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Patrol Boat, Riverine, the correct name.

I would be amazed that you had the nerve to make a rename request like this that's so obviously wrong, while there's an ANI thread open about you doing just this, except that this is what you always do.

Patrol Boat, Riverine is correct. Patrol Boat, River is common if wrong (but we're supposed to be better than that). COMMONNAME would be PBR or even 'pibber', neither of which I'd favour on the grounds of clarity and the fact that we do have an authoritative and correct name to use instead. 'River patrol boat' is a generic wikineologism. It's not a bad title for an article on the Swift Boats, the SOC-Rs and the rest of them, even the LCM-6 Tangos and the Ma Douche; but it's not an appropriate title for an article on this specific class in isolation.

Yet again, this is the 2nd of my concerns about your misuse of MOSCAPS: you seem unable to discern between specific and generic articles, or uses of a name, when there's some overlap. This is the same damage you caused on the RN small boat articls for Harbour Defence Motor Launch (et al. - there's half a dozen of these). It's the same damage you caused moving Landing Craft, Mechanized to mechanized landing craft, as if they were some sort of mechanised craft for landing materiel. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many books refer to the things designated PBR as river patrol boats; that's the commonname for the boats so designated. It might have a slightly broader use, but essentially all uses of "river patrol boat" that I've found since about 1960 are for the PBR. See for example this book, p.22. Relatively few books use the Riverine designation, and many of those use lowercase "patrol boat, riverine" (see book search). I could show you via n-grams, but I think you wouldn't like that so much (partly because it contradicts your idea that "river patrol boat" is a wikineologism). Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could get your E-meter out, and it would carry as much weight.

You're right, 'river patrol boat' isn't a wikineologism, but it is a neologism. 'Patrol Boat, Riverine' is clumsy and that's why COMMONNAME by far is PBR. Your cited source? How many times does it use 'river patrol boat' and how many 'PBR'? This is an author struggling to avoid an impenetrable acronym and give something descriptive, yet at the same time they're stuck with COMMONNAME. I've no objection to using 'river patrol boat' editorially within the article (to a similar extent) to avoid PBR. But when it comes to the article title, we should be authoritative and WP is traditionally against acronyms. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PBR is most common, but too ambiguous. The next most common term for it is "river patrol boat". Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a British perspective river patrol boat is probably also going to sound ambiguous if not flat wrong [1]. If you go through Jane's you'll see it used as a general classifier as well. Recentish books like River Gunboats also do that. From non-American perspectives use of what is understood to be a generic descriptor for an American specific topic can come across as an arrogation. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support any expanded form of "PBR" matching the abbreviation; oppose river patrol boat. I believe PBR is the COMMONNAME (see Google Scholar search "vietnam war" "pbr" (496 results), "vietnam war" "river patrol boat" (96 results), "vietnam war" "patrol boat, river" (72 results), "vietnam war" "patrol boat, riverine" (23 results)). Since obviously this topic isn't the primary topic of PBR, expanding the acronym is appropriate for natural disambiguation. (MOS:ACROTITLE.) I have no clear preference between the multiple possible expansions of PBR, such as Patrol Boat, River, or Patrol Boat, Riverine, or with different capitalization, or without the comma. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This book has: 2. The PBR was formally classified as a “river patrol boat” in the Navy's September 23, 1970 listing of combat ship classifications (SECNAVINST 5030.1F). Common usage doesn't do the backwards military way of listing things, just because there's an acronym. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to neutral. I think what usually happens is that the acronym PBR (rather than a phrase) is used throughout a book or article, and PBR is explained on the first use (or in a glossary), or not explained at all. Those which explain it have different ways of doing so, and text like "... a river patrol boat (PBR) ..." is certainly one way, more so than it initially seemed to me before browsing some more sources. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the PBR was formally classified as a “river patrol boat”

Do you not appreciate the difference between classified as (i.e. a member of that generic set, along with potentially many others) and named as, meaning a specific name applied to that group alone, excluding the others such as Swift Boats? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - my limited knowledge of all things military makes me lean towards common name when describing things, and in this case whether it's due to exposure to John Rambo or Jeremy Clarkson, this article is known as a PBR, or Patrol Boat, River. I would also be opposed to "Riverine" based on common name again.

  Using the commonname is exactly what the suggestion "river patrol boat" is about. It's way more common than "Patrol Boat, River", which is not so much a name as a way to list it military equipment designator lists. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see one of the arguments against PBR is that it's ambiguous - I disagree on two counts:

1. It's not ambiguous at all within the article about a Patrol Boat, River. It only becomes ambiguous if you change the article name and terms within it and so the easiest option here is not to change it.
2. If there is any ambiguity outside the Patrol Boat, River article - that's what disambig pages are for.

I mean it's ambiguous as a title, which is why we have the disambig page at PBR. If you wanted to use PBR as the title you'd need to add a parenthetical disambiguator, e.g. PBR (boat). Of course you can use it throughout the article where its meaning is defined. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I note that the current PBR disambig is confusing in itself with Patrol boat riverine redirecting to Patrol Boat and Patrol Boat, River coming here, as expected. That definitely needs addressing ahead of any page move, as it's very confusing to redirect "Patrol boat riverine" to Patrol Boat, yet start this particular article called "Patrol boat, river" by saying Patrol Boat, Riverine, or PBR... Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm also being bold and changing the opening sentence from Patrol Boat, Riverine, or PBR, is the United States Navy designation... to Patrol Boat, River, or PBR, is the United States Navy designation... to bring into line with policy as in MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I'm aware that the article title is currently under discussion, but that's what made me notice the discrepency. Regardless of this discussion and/or outcome, the opening line of the article should match the article name. If it's moved to anything else it will need to be changed again - perhaps back to "Patrol Boat, Riverine" - but in the meantime it should be "Patrol Boat, River". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose moving to river patrol boat; this article is about a specific US army term, not the general concept of boats patrolling rivers. Not qualified to comment on "river" versus "riverine". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we're talking about a specific boat type here and the order leads to the acronym. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mztourist, also, does anyone really use the term riverine? Cuprum17 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed. River patrol boat is a generic term (and should probably be redirected to Brown-water navy), whereas this is a specific class of vessel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative PBR (river patrol boat): I have made many searches similar to those cited by Adumbrativus and, as they do, I reach the conclusion that PBR is the WP:COMMONNAME. I would cite those searches too. However, WP:ACROTITLE and MOS:ACROTITLE would have us avoid an ambiguous acronym as an article title - rendering PBR as an unsuitable title (see also here and here). This guidance does not prevent us from the alternative proposed (even if it falls to WP:IAR given the rationale herein). By including the acronym expansion, the proposal renders the acronym unambiguous. The proposal may appear to be parenthetic disambiguation but given that an abbreviation on first use in text is expanded, as a link it is arguably WP:NATURAL.
  On the matter of capitalisation, wherever we see PBR in sources, it is almost always accompanied by an expansion (as it should be on first use). It is a style to capitalise in the expansion, the letters of the initialism. This is not our style per MOS:EXPABBR. Because of this alternative style, capitalisation in the initial expanded form used to explain the abbreviation and the abbreviation is otherwise used in text does not ipso facto evidence that caps are necessary per MOS:CAPS. This is what we are generally seeing in sources in the evidence presented. On the otherhand, we do see expanded abbreviations in lowercase and sometimes alone to sufficiently indicate that capitalisation is not necessary per MOS:CAPS.
  Patrol boat, river (however capitalised) is army double back speak which no normal person speaks - spoiler alert, in this context I am not a normal person (look at my user page). Army double back speak places the primary noun|noun phrase first, with other descriptors following (separated by a comma). This is the reverse of normal word ordering and is done for catalouging and indexing. Given that we are writing for a general audience, not the military or military buffs, this is not a format that we should or must follow when even the USN doesn't (here). In expanding the abbreviation, the association between PBR and river patrol boat remains sufficiently clear without the need to follow the exact order of the initials in the abbreviation. There are more than sufficient examples in the evidence presented (see also this google books search) to affirm this point of argument.
  The evidence is clear that we should prefer river rather than riverine. Unsubstantiated opinion as to what sources indicate is no substitute for actual evidence that can be interrogated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose that per WP:Article titles#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By including the expansion, the proposal renders the acronym unambiguous. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But then see WP:Acronym (name). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a link to P&G but a link to an RM you initiated. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments lack strength within themself. We assess issues on a case by case basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]