Talk:Evergreen G-class container ship

March 2021

Attn admins: might be a good idea to temporarily protect the article in order to prevent "funny" vandalism prompted by the grounding of "Ever Given". Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who decided a constructive edit is vandalism. The 3RR policy excludes "obvious vandalism" such as "such as page blanking and adding offensive language," which this clearly is not. I am open to other language for the ship's status (e.g. "stuck," "aground," "Blocking the Suez Canal," or any number of possible options), but it is clearly not "in service" when it is unable to move or operate in any normal fashion. The fact you believe you have to right to declare anything other than your preferred language as "vandalism" is exactly why Wikipedia is so toxic to new contributors. 172.58.43.226 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The ship has a crew on board, has not been laid up or scrapped, which means that its current status is "in service". The fact that the ship is currently grounded has nothing to do with its status as such.

It might be a good idea for you to inform yourself as to the meaning of a ship's status in this context, rather than justifying your uninformed edits with wiki legalisms. The ship's registry page (see relevant reference in table) list its status as "in operation", so that settles it. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh? I'm not aware of "WP:ShipStatus" that lays out a registry page as somehow being the authoritative source for "status" columns. MarineTraffic.com gives the status as "Stopped". NBC News says the status is "Stranded". Given that this is an ongoing worldwide news story, it shouldn't be shocking that editors want to keep the story up to date. From the article history the first thing you cleaned up really was vandalism and after that you've just decided to be silly and stubborn. 2601:585:103:E120:357C:61E0:9035:9FA0 (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The "status" as given by sites like marinetraffic.com has nothing to do with the ships status as given in the table in this article. A ships status may be any of any of "in service", "retired" or "laid up", "scrapped", or "sunk" (or any synonyms that might apply). A ship that has stranded is still considered "in service", unless it has been given up as unsalvageable. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Both NBC News and BBC describe the ship's status as "stranded". It's stranded. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The status of a vessel, as listed in the table under Golden-class_container_ship, has nothing to do with a vessel being stranded or not. A vessel's status as intended here may be any of "in service", "retired" or "laid up", "scrapped", or "sunk" (or any synonyms that might apply). Since the Ever Given at the moment has both crew and cargo on board, it is to be considered "in service". The fact that it is momentarily stuck in the Suez Canal doesn't have anything to do with this - stranding or grounding is generally a temporary condition that is part and parcel of a ship's operation.

The ship's registry page - which is the authoritative source on the subject and referenced in the table - lists the vessel's status as "in operation", just like its sister ships. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm moving your comment to this appropriate venue from my talk page for you, @Rocknrollsuicide:. This discussion is happening here, so please keep it here. However, if you do not want your comment here, please feel free to delete it, but leave my own addition in place.

Current news outlets report the status of this vessel as "stranded", or other similar descriptions, and not as "in service". There's nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines to indicate any single page is "the authoritative source" for content about a vessel's status. So unless you can provide more reputable sourcing than contemporary news outlets, I'm afraid I disagree with your opinion.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well then, @Pinchme123:here you go. The following outlines the different status of ships according to IHS_Markit, which is the entity that assigns IMO_numbers to ships: http://qihelp.rightship.com/en/articles/951467-how-is-ship-status-defined-in-qi

This is the type of status that is associated with any ship in the IMO database, and is what the "status" column in the table refers to. "In service" means that the ship is currently trading (it has cargo and crew on board) and such temporary inconveniences as grounding do not affect said status, unless the ship is given up on because it cannot be recovered or until such time that the ship would have to be temporarily retired for major repairs as a consequence of the grounding. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I will jump back in here to again point out that nowhere is there a wikipedia guideline that "status" for a ship is defined only, or authoritatively, as being solely what IHS Markit (a for-profit company) says it is. For many ships that may be the only "status" one can find. However for THIS ship there are quite a lot of citable sources presenting a different status. These are both newsworthy and encyclopedia worthy. Eventually the world consensus on this ship's status will change - in the mean time I suggest you move on. 2601:585:103:E120:C0F2:9285:7DB0:1C28 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, IHS Markit is a FOR PROFIT COMPANY!11! Puh-leeeese, and media outlets aren't? While it is somewhat peculiar that IMO numbers are assigned by a private company, this is so for historical reasons, just like the fact that almost all certification bodies (such as Lloyds Register of Shipping) are private companies - but the IMO database, which holds the status of all sea-going trading vessels in the world, is a UN entity.

That said, news outlets are *not* authorities on a ship's status, more so since most media outlets apparently aren't even capable of distinguishing between a tanker, a bulk carrier and a container carrier - I've seen *all three* even in news items from otherwise reputable media outlets, so maybe it should be noted in the article that according to media, we can't be sure if the vessel really is a container carrier?

The registrar's database lists the vessel as "in service", which it technically still is, and will remain so until the vessel *will be taken out of service* for whatever reason. Thus far, this isn't the case. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The ship's registry database you're discussing doesn't list the vessel's "status" as "in service" at all, at least anywhere I can find. It lists the ship's "Lifecycle State" as "In Operation." Which it is, in the sense that it's not under construction or being scrapped or something. That is different than the "Status" column here in this article. Being stuck or stranded may not be part of a ship's lifecycle, but it may still be relevant when describing a ship's "status" as that word is colloquially defined. There is nothing that says a ship's "status" here on Wikipedia must be the same as a ship's "Lifecycle State" as defined by a particular registry. 172.58.35.181 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I challenge your assertion that the "status" column in WP articles on ship classes deals with a "status" different from the lifecycle status as given in the registry. You can check other articles on ship classes to verify that, in fact the "status" column, where present, *always* reflects the ship's lifecycle status. Also, "in service" and "in operation" are synonymous in this context.

What you are pretending is similar to inferring the civil status of Ms. So-and-so, based on an article in People Magazine, that says she's been seen with Mr. Such-and-such, ignoring that there is no such civil status as "one night stand", and the final authority on a person's civil status is the Civil Registry. Rocknrollsuicide (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You can check other articles on ship classes to verify that, in fact the "status" column, where present, *always* reflects the ship's lifecycle status. As has already been repeatedly pointed out, there is no WP policy mandating that "status" be determined by some singular registry source, or even that it must only reflect the "lifecycle state," otherwise the column would be titled, "lifecycle state" or reference the registry in some way. At least, I would assume this is what your argument is about; if instead you're trying to claim other WP pages are reliable sources for this page's content, I suggest taking a look at WP:WPNOTRS.

Setting aside that issue, no, "in service" and "in operation" are not identical (and, for that matter, neither are "status" and "state" identical). If you claim a particular quote comes from a particular source, and one of the two words in that quote isn't in said source anywhere at all, the quote isn't accurate in any sense and cannot be considered reliable.

Finally, this analogy about people is inscrutable, while inadvertently wandering into WP:BLP territory (truly an amazing feat, given this article's subject matter is especially far from Wikipedia's BLP content). Whatever it is you were trying to convey with your analogy, I am completely lost about it because of these circumstances.

Multiple reliable sources already included in this article report the status of Ever Given as "stranded." Do you have multiple reliable sources to bring forward refuting this, so that we may evaluate them in order to make some headway in resolving this issue?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is denying the fact that the ship is stranded... So no need to spent time to look for more sources on that. However, the official status of the ship is still that it is in service. Why not put the current status of the ship in the Suez Canal as a note? Same as is done with the infobox of the ships page? KiaaTiX (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if the ship's page's infobox were relevant here, it does not contain a "status" row, so I'm not at all surprised that its current status is instead reported in the "notes" row. This page however does contain a "status" column, so I see no reason to move its current status form there to the "notes" column, given the RS reporting its status as "stranded." As for your assertion that there's such a thing as a ship's "official status," if it is indeed a real thing, it shouldn't be too hard to provide RS showing 1) there's such a thing as an "official status;" and 2) some agency/entity/website/etc. is regarded by reliable sources as the source of an "official status" for ships. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes do have a status field. See Template:Infobox_ship_career#TemplateData. Like the template says, it is optional and used to indicate if a ship is in active service or not. For other things the note field can be used.

Anyway, the ship is both in active service and stranded in the Suez Canal. These are not some mutually exclusive things... KiaaTiX (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"in service but stranded", retaining the current reference links, would be an acceptable entry in the status field to show that, IMHO. 2601:585:103:E120:E5E9:681C:4C5A:DE83 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm hoping you'll respond to the second, more substantive half of my comment, KiaaTiX. It's nice that the infobox template includes an optional "Ship status" row, but I still see little relevance of the infobox to the content of this page. Either way, I think we're still going to need some reliable sources to back up the assertion that "official status" is a thing and that one specific agency/entity/website/etc. is the source for such a thing. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a "Golden class"?

I have opened discussion related to the name of the class on Ever Given's talk page which may lead to renaming this and a few other ship class articles. There is also a related topic on project talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Input to the discussion:

• a quick look through the references does not find anything about a "golden class".
• according to the builder's website it appears to be "classed" as a "20,000TEU TYPE CONTAINER CARRIER".
• there is an article on ship class which talks about merchant vessel class in particular. --Cornellier (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Managed to find this Corporate Social Responsibility Report from 2019 where they refer to the class as G-type ships. It also lists some other ship types:

Ship article on wikipedia	Ship type according to Evergreen
Evergreen E-class container ship	E-type
Evergreen S-class container ship	S-type
Evergreen L-class container ship	L-type
Thalassa Hellas-class container ship Triton-class container ship Tampa Triumph-class container ship	T-type
Evergreen B-class container ship	B-type
Golden-class container ship	G-type
Evergreen F-class container ship	F-type

. KiaaTiX (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Evergreen themselves seem to refer to the ships as "series" or "type"; thus, should we even use the word "class" in Wikipedia? Tupsumato (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would support renaming this article to either Evergreen G-class container ship, Evergreen G-Type container ship or Evergreen G Series container ship. G-Type would be the most accurate, but the current WP:SHIPNAME guidelines on naming ship articles recommends the use the word class to keep the naming scheme consistent across the entire wiki.

An article can always be changed to start to something like "The G class or G Type is a series....." where it mentions the different used names for the same class.KiaaTiX (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support using "Evergreen" as a disambiguator in the article title (e.g. "Evergreen G-class container ship") because the "alphabet classes" are specific to this particular company and in this article we are covering only 11 of the 13 ships based on the Imabari 20000 design. As per requested move below. Tupsumato (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the Japanese article ja:エヴァーギヴン the class is called "EVER G", which would be coordinate with a Wikipedia class article located at |Evergreen G-class container ship commensurate with the other classes already having articles. According to the Chinese article zh:長賜輪, the shipclass is Chinese: "長榮黃金級貨櫃船"; pinyin: hǎngróng huángjīn jí huòguì chuán; lit. 'Evergreen Gold Class Containership', which would match up with this current article name "Golden", as in Chinese Gold and Golden can be the same word, and the lead ship was Golden. This also shows that Ever is shortform of Evergreen -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a third-party source to meet WP:RS for class naming. Tupsumato (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The use of italics in the article title is also inconsistent with WP:SHIPNAME. Italics are to be used for the class name only when the class name is also the name of one of the ships in said class. There is no ship of this class named "Golden". If the article were tiled "Ever Golden-class container ship" then the italics would be justified. But we shouldn't be using an abbreviation in the article name by removing "Ever". — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Italics can be removed right away or latest when we revise the other articles after renaming this one. Tupsumato (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like there is a need for an article on the Imabari 20000 TEU containership base design, of which the G-class seems to be subdivision of -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It could indeed be more appropriate. I've done similar articles for recent Russian icebreaker classes which do not have a recognized "class name". However, there are a lot of standard designs out there for run-of-the-mill cargo ships and I'm not sure if we want to begin covering them in Wikipedia. Perhaps a class article is simply redundant and we could include the relevant unique information in the only non-redlinked ship article of the class? Tupsumato (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Who currently leases or operates a ship is a temporary property of the individual ship: grouping ships by the name the leasor applies to them means that you're in the slightly crazy situation where the page has to be split or renamed any time a lease changes hands. Other than ships, no other craft type in Wikipedia seems to be organized by leasor rather than by model. DewiMorgan (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2021

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 section.

---

• Golden-class container ship → Evergreen G-class container ship
• G-class container ship → OOCL G-class container ship

– As already discussed on this talk page, Evergreen Marine refers to these ships as being "G type" ships. The name "Golden class" is not something that is used by either the shipping line, builder or owner of the ships. KiaaTiX (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This class is specific to Evergreen Marine and covers 11 of the 13 ships built to the same Imabari 20000 design. It would also be in line with the other Evergreen class name articles and disambiguates from a similarly-named class in OOCL's fleet. Tupsumato (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support since it's less bad than the current situation. The fact that the name of this "class" or "type" is so murky makes one wonder if the page may be redundant. Most of the info could be on Ever Given with a mention of her sister ships, which are not notable, are red linked, and maybe should be not there per WP:NOTDIR. --Cornellier (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, but as such large ships are inherently notable, I wouldn't necessarily propose deleting the class article even though the individual ships are unlikely to get their own articles and the unique information in this article can be incorporated to the only non-redlinked ship article of the class. However, now that I think about it, I wouldn't oppose it either. I could even support it... Tupsumato (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - New name is more inline with the references and the other Evergreen class articles on Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - rename to Imabari 20000-class. There's no page on the 13 Imabari 2000-class ships, all of which are still owned by a subsidiary of Imabari, and all of which were part of the same construction project. The page should exist, and this should be it. Whoever currently leases each ship should be at most a column in the table: it is a temporary property of each individual ship, not a permanent property of the whole group, and certainly is not worthy of a whole page. If, tomorrow, Evergreen goes bust and sells their leases to 11 different companies, does this page get split into eleven pages? It may be that this is considered "normal" for shipping, to group by the leasor: but as a naive encyclopaedia user, it feels an extremely silly way to organize the information, and leaves giant holes in the information: where can the information on the other two ships be found? Not here, nor linked form here! This is as silly as if there were a page about Enterprise Car Rental's fleet of 16-foot Chevy Silverado Trucks, while *not* having a page for the Chevy Silverado itself, except at least Enterprise owns its trucks! DewiMorgan (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose this either. I'm just a bit reluctant to use the word "class" together with the design code; somehow "Imabari 20000 -type" would feel more appropriate but that may be just me — there was also a strong argument for using "class". Tupsumato (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• If it is renamed in this manner, the proposed Evergreen name should exist as a redirect, and the OOCL article should still be moved -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support moves as proposed. We should, given the opportunity, make things less wrong. BD2412 T 17:23, 16 May 2021 (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.