Talk:Pride of Hull

Re registration

Worth keeping an eye on P&O Ferries to re-register liners to save money news story about intention to re-register under Bahamas flag. Keith D (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 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. – robertsky (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

---

MS Pride of Hull → Pride of Hull – WP:NCSHIPS specifically: an article about a ship not known to have a prefix should use only the ship's name, if that name is unambiguous. Operator P&O describes the ship as the Pride of Hull, not the MS Pride of Hull, as do the BBC and Ships Monthly. Same principle as applied in the naming of the P&O Pioneer article. Also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME apply. Emethigg (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - the name of the ship is MS Pride of Hull, not Pride of Hull. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Other than you saying so, is there any evidence of this? Emethigg (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

On a procedural note, this should probably be a multi-move request, since you are proposing to rename a number of articles, not just one. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Nominator comment: Pride of Hull, without the MS prefix, is seemingly how all reliable sources, be they national, regional or industry publications, describe the ship, e.g:

1. BBC News; , , , ,
2. Business Insider:
3. Daily Mirror:
4. Hull Daily Mail: , ,
5. Manchester Evening News
6. P&O:
7. Ships Monthly: , , ,
8. Sky News:
9. The Times:
10. Yorkshire Post: ,

Applying the what it say on the tin test, all images of the ship confirm that is carries Pride of Hull, and not MS Pride of Hull, signage. It appears that only Wikipedia and some mirror sites consider it to be named MS Pride of Hull. Emethigg (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - the ship is a motor ship, powered by an internal combustion engine. MS and MV are synonymous. Whether an article is house at the MS or MV prefix is down to creator's choice. The prefix is correct and the article should not be moved. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: no one is disputing that is is a motorship and that MS would be a valid disambiguation if required. The question is why the need to disambiguate at all, when the ship is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the MS is only being used to disambiguate, as no reliable sources include it. Not without precedent, the Queen Elizabeth 2 article was moved from RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 following a RM in 2012. Emethigg (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

But note that the QE2's RMS was always erroneous, so it had to go anyway - Royal Mail never granted its use and Cunard didn't use it (except on board where the crew went native). It was agreed, though, to dispense with a prefix altogether. - Davidships (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Yorkshire and WikiProject Ships have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support: The actual name of the ship is, and always has been, Pride of Hull, "MS" is just an editorial optional prefix. As there is no need for any dab regarding other ships or, indeed other things, there is no strong reason not to follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCSHIPS. - Davidships (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning support per Davidships. Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia operates in accordance with reliable sources. As shown by Emethigg above, those reliable sources do not use MS for this ship. Therefore, we shouldn't either. This is the most basic premise of WP:CRITERIA. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The name is the registered name, period. The ultimate disambiguation for most modern vessels meeting notability requirements here is the IMO number that sticks with a hull even though name changes. Once the propulsion type might have been a reasonable differentiation but finding a commercial vessel that is not "motor" now is a bit difficult. By the way, the formal "titles" with some legal significance, HMS, USS and so on — legally defining a national ship and war ship with certain immunities and privileges —are not part of the name. Technically even USS Foo becomes simply Foo during long inactive periods such as block upgrades when they drop out of commissioned status.

~2026-12562-05 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 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.