This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Maritime This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force

I think it's pretty common knowledge among people interested in maritime history that some modern authors, internet commenters, video game developers, etc will use prefixes like "KMS" or "IJN" for Nazi German and Imperial Japanese warships respectively. However I don't think a lot of people were merely a casual interest in the subject (for example, someone who only became interested in this subject recently after playing World of Warships or something) are necessarily aware that these prefixes aren't historic and are merely being applied retroactively by modern authors retroactively.

With that in mind, I propose another bullet point section be added after "Prefix Conventions" specifically to address the fact that these prefixes aren't historically authentic and that any modern use is an anachronism. I see a few places where this is touched on (like the Imperial Japanese row on the table), but a separate section could go a little more in depth about it. To be clear, I'm not proposing this section contain its own table with lists of every anachronistic prefix anyone has ever come up with, as that could theoretically get out of hand. But instead a section specifically to address what I've already mentioned and list a few of the most common examples. ZackAkai (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really adding anything to the knowledge of the real-world practice to list every fictional space navy's designation scheme. ~2025-32421-99 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. I added a template to flag this as a collection of fictional miscellany. I imagine that most editors would likewise see such a long list as not necessary. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 19:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]