Ships' Names and Staff Duties, split from Re: HMCS Athabaskan

[Sub_Guy]

Such a minor issue, caps, no caps?  Does it really matter? 

I went around my unit asking fellas how they would write out ships names and lets just say I have a new found respect for the Atomic Wedgie... 

 

[medaid]

Such a minor issue, caps, no caps?  Does it really matter? 

It's not a minor issue DH. It's the same as The RCRs with their capitalized The. A unit's name is respected and set out properly as per the pams, why shouldn't a ship's name be done so as well?

Now, the Navy me says yes, all letters in ship's name to capitalized.

The Army me says, what ever works.

 

[Jack Nastyface]

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_operations/operations_e.asp?id=660

It was by a LCdr

So, by virtue of your logic all senior officers are correct 100% of the time. Am I correct on this point? If that is your argument then what with all the CPO1/CWOs, Generals and Admirals running the show at the Puzzle Palace in Ottawa you must be in agreement with every decision and resulting order that is ever issued from that venerable institution. Brings to mind a saying that a friend of mine frequently uses.
  "The last guy who was perfect had a rotten Friday." Capt Charles Scot-Brown, Canloan and PPCLI 30 year veteran.

 

[Sub_Guy]

It might be a big deal to some, but I am sure it is not keeping guys up at night, it just sounds like a pet peeve for some.  Most personnel in the Navy probably have no idea that ships names are to be written out in CAPS. 

It reminds me of my old job as a communicator, the senior guys would flip out every time REFS: was written in a message, they would scratch out the S making it REF:    (there could have been 4 references, but it always went out of the shack as REF, but yet countless messages would come in from Ottawa with REFS: .

Although this does sound like it could be a project for some poor sap in Ottawa, to correct the publications and fix up the websites.  Easily a three year posting to the NCR!

 

[McG]

Ship's names are always capitalized.

So far, both sides of the argument of pointed to senior officers who do or do not use all-caps in the names of ships.  Several references have been cited which specifically state the names of ships will be all-caps in military writing.  The only customs & traditions type reference cited (CFP 200) uses italics and not all-caps.  The only civillian writing reference cited acknowledges the military practice of all-caps but states it does not apply to civillian writing.  Therefore, I can only conclude that the Ships' names are always capitalized in military writing and only capitalized in military writing.  Unless you can present another reference to counter this conclusion ...
... maybe try here: A-AD-121-C01/FP-000 Staff and Writing Procedures for Department of National Defense and the Canadian Forces.

This website does not conform to nor enforce CF military writing style and therefore there is no obligation on the part of members to capitalize ships' names.  CF Websites and other correspondence intended for the public often adopt a civillian writing style (know & cater to your audience sort of thing), and so it would not be incorrect for ships' names to appear not fully capitalized in such CF works.

As an aside, it is also CF practice to capitalize the names of exercises and operations.  Google will show you that (like ships' names) this practice does not carry over to civillian writing style.  Go look for Ex Maple Guardian (Ex MAPLE GUARDIAN), Op ATHENA (Op Athena), Op APOLLO (Op Apollo) or Op ARCHER (Op Archer) as a few examples.

It might be a big deal to some, but I am sure it is not keeping guys up at night

 

[Neill McKay]

If not using all caps is good enough for a Lt Comd writting an article posted on the DND website, then not using capitals is certainly good enough for this website.

Will you change your mind if I find an example of a Cdr who has posted an article on the DND website with a ship's name in all caps?

 

[MARSBAR]

I know that this will be news to all of you but the military is wrong and it is perpetuated because of "well.. that's the way it has always been done". If you look at the root reference for the standard of writing for not only miltary writing, but for all of English, the Concise Oxford, it explicitly says the names of ships are italicized. In fact all "how to write" references I have referred to say the same. In another word it is HMCS Athabaskan vice HMCS ATHABASKAN. The caps for the names of ships are a hold back from the days before computers and handwritten letters were sent to the admin office for typing. When the originator wanted something written in Italics they would capitalize the word and the typer woud then know to use Italics. In fact if you look at all correspondence originated from the CMS, he uses Italics and since I am in the Naval uniform I will follow my admiral. Wikipedia also has a good link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italics#When_to_use

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

In fact if you look at all correspondence originated from the CMS, he uses Italics and since I am in the Naval uniform I will follow my admiral.

You can never go wrong if you follow the boss.

 

[Michael OLeary]

You can never go wrong if you follow the boss.

Unless you're following so closely that the pressure on your shoulders is his buttocks.  >

 

[ltmaverick25]

In my relatively short life in the Navy, in every military correspondence I have seen, be it message or just an informal email the ships name was always capitalized. 

Through my masters degree in history, whenever reading anything on naval history the ships name was always in italics.  I actually got feedback on one of my papers indicating that caps is only used in military writing and that in all other settings the proper method is italics. 

Also "The" would be used when referring to The Ottawa but never to say The HMCS Ottawa

Anyway thats what the academic community had to say about it, in the event that anyone cared.

 

[George Wallace]

Also "The" would be used when referring to The Ottawa but never to say The HMCS Ottawa

"The Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Ottawa" would sound ridiculous.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Indeed, thats probably why The is only used when not using HMCS..

 

[CountDC]

In fact if you look at all correspondence originated from the CMS, he uses Italics and since I am in the Naval uniform I will follow my admiral.

Cheers,

Steve

Interesting - I just went through the RDIMS looking up correspondence from the CMS and the only one that used Italics was to an outside agency.  Everyone that was internal to the CF had the ship name in caps.  Also checked the archive of outgoing correspondence from the CMS Suite with the same result - he uses caps for internal CF.

By the way, The military is not wrong as it sets it owns rules for writing instead of following civilian rules.  Look at the formatting for letters - you won't find it in any business school. There are military rules of writing and then there are outside of military rules, same as we have rules/regulations on dress, conduct, "laws" and discipline that do not correspond to the civilian rules. 

 

[MARS]

I had been taught that the Ship's name, OTTAWA in this case, is a proper noun, just like names of individuals.  If that is the case, does "the" actually work in the absence of "HMCS"? 

For example, and I use Mr. Wallace's name here as an example ONLY (since he posted recently) - not insinuating anything else:

If I were to be briefing my Captain about a meeting in OTTAWA's Wardroom, I would say:

"Captain, you have a meeting with George Wallace in OTTAWA's Wardroom today at 1000"

not:

"Captain, you have a meeting with the George Wallace in the OTTAWA's Wardroom at 1000"

my 2 cents,

Hate to post and run, but it is 1310 and time for "Out-Pipes"

Cheers,

MARS

 

[CountDC]

True MARS but there are sits where you may use "the".

Where are you posted?  The OTTAWA. (say just "Ottawa" and it is assumed you mean the city)

The OTTAWA will sail at 1500H.

I spent 2 years with the ATHAB.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While it may (or may not) be the tradition of 'navy speak' or simply the affectation of a particular individual, I do recall a "lecture" (or more appropriately semi-drunken babble) nearly thirty years ago when on EX KERNAL POTLACH (a CANUS naval/amphib exercise).  When one of us soldiers aboard HMCS Provider referred to our voyage to San Diego on that vessel as sailing on the Provider, he (and those of us in earshot) was educated that:

It is PROVIDER, not 'the Provider';
The crew (sailors) are posted to PROVIDER;
The crew sail (or serve or live) in PROVIDER;
You people (i.e. soldiers, said with barely concealed contempt) are embarked aboard, you are not 'in' or 'on' or 'with' the ship;
The only things that sailors do in an 'on' position is sit 'on' the head and make 'brown jobs' (i.e. soldiers) or get 'on' top of your sister when we're in port.

 

[CountDC]

and a little more:  http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/centennial/0/0-c_eng.asp?category=67

  A Canadian warship is known in writing as H.M.C.S. Buckingham or HMCS Buckingham, even, the Buckingham (with her name in italics); but a ship’s name should never appear in quotation marks.  The name when used for the designated class is not in italic and only the first letter is capitalized.  In the Department of National Defence documents, names of ships are written entirely in upper case and are not italicized: HMCS HALIFAX.
Ref: The Canadian Style – A guide to writing and editing. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto, 1997, p.107.

For those interested in Navy trivia - check out the link. 

 

[Privateer]

My recollection is that the old practice, still followed by some, is to use the following when speaking (though probably not in writing):  "The OTTAWA" would refer to the ship, while "OTTAWA" would refer to the commanding officer of HMCS OTTAWA; eg. "OTTAWA coming aboard, sir."

 

[McG]

Ref: The Canadian Style – A guide to writing and editing. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto, 1997, p.107.

I have a funny feeling that reference was already directly cited in this thread .... http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76685/post-715237.html#msg715237

 

[CountDC]

I have a funny feeling that reference was already directly cited in this thread .... http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76685/post-715237.html#msg715237

true but that was not what I was posting - just happened to be the end of the quote I was posting from the Canadian Naval Centennial Site which the link takes you to.