Talk:Greek Tjeld-type patrol boat

Page move revert

This article, which was titled "Greek Tjeld-type patrol boat" (per Conway, the source for the information here) was moved without discussion to "Greek Nasty-type patrol boat", with the edit summary "in Greece, they are universally designated with their US class name". I've moved it back, per BRD and opened the discussion here.
The title, as stated, is the one used by Conway; anything different would .a) need to be explained and .b) be backed by an equally reliable source. As it stands the page move is misleading; it suggests something the source does not, while claiming (quite unashamedly) to be supported by that source. As for the reason given, I'm inclined to say the Greeks can call it what they like, (as can the Gk WP, if they ever get round to writing an article on the class, though they still would need some evidence for it), but as this is the English WP we should call it what it is called in English, primarily by using the information available to an English-speaking readership. If there are any reliable sources that confirm that this is what they are “universally designated” in Greek ( I couldn't find any) then they need to be presented here so we can work out how to include the information into the article, as it would contradict the information the article is sourced from. And if it is strongly felt the title needs changing I suggest the correct course would be to open a Request Move and present some rationale (and supporting evidence ) there. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
PS: And the US class name, referred to in the edit summary, is hardly relevant; the boats were bought by the Greek Navy from Norway. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Well, class names are assigned by the navies that operate each boat, and it is their usage we should follow. The fact that Conway, although it is a respected publisher, ignores this usage is not surprising, since little attention is usually paid in the English-language press (even specialist press) on the Greek Navy. I've often found errors in ship names, class names, rank names, dates, you name it. Now, regarding the name, the Greek navy (and the Greek military in general) has close links to the US, not Norway, and generally follows US practice in many things. So using the US name should not be surprising to anyone who is familiar with the subject. Now I understand that the WP:BRD cycle is frustrating, but frankly I did not think it would come to this. I made the move per WP:BOLD, and the justification I gave was nothing short of the truth. Plus I consider it obvious that when a well-established editor, of Greek nationality, who clearly has been active in the area of Greek military history makes such a move, WP:AGF at least would suggest that he has a good reason for doing so. I was also under the impression that you had seen the articles in the Greek WP on the individual ships of this class, which are linked from here, and which are quite clear in what they call the class name. Even if one cannot read Greek, it is difficult to miss the "NASTY" designation. As for the reliable source, here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, the Hellenic Navy website: "Coastal Patrol Boats of the Nasty Class", History of the Fast Boats Command, I can find more if necessary. Cheers, and sorry for the trouble. Constantine ✍ 14:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying

To answer your last point first, I did see the ship articles on the Greek WP, and their mention of a Nasty Type, but I also noticed that none of those articles had any supporting references, so I didn't put much credence in them. But if we now have a source for your assertion, the next thing is to work out how to incorporate it with what we already have. The article already says they were “also described as the Improved Nasty type” (ref Conway); if that doesn't cover it we can always add “or simply Nasty type” (ref Hellenic Navy website).

As for the rest, though: It's true class names are determined by the operators, but that doesn't mean that we should invariably follow them at all; we should be using the names most familiar to an English-speaking readership (articles on Soviet ship classes being a case in point). And the standard there, for purely pragmatic reasons, is verifiability, not truth: Information should tally with the sources given, so readers can check stuff. You can be sniffy about Conway, but it is a respected source: And useful as the HN website is, it's hardly stable; every article I've looked at recently which has it as a link comes up as a 404 error.

And it isn't clear from your sources whether this is a class name or a type name; Conway's title is a description of type, not a class name, as is the first source (tho' not the second) also the first source has only four boats, and different specs, while the second agrees there were six. The resolution presumably (from the Conway account) is that the first source refers to the re-engined, re-commissioned boats from 1989, not the original six from 1967. Both Nasty and Tjeld were Norwegian boat types, so “Tjeld-type” and Nasty-type” are both logical; but if you are insisting that the Greek boats were named the “Nasty-class” because the American boats were, I think that would require a bit of proving.

Lastly, I suppose we all assume what is obvious to us is obvious to everyone; For instance, I'd have thought any well-established editor would know that information that contradicts sourced material in an article, must itself be sourced; and that mucking about with a work in progress, without so much as a by-your-leave, is unlikely to be welcomed. But that's just me... And no, I don't find the BRD cycle frustrating at all (I'm unclear why you would think that); I think its a useful and generally accepted way of dealing with over-zealous change. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hah, I'm not sniffy about Conway, it's just that there are errors whenever I have checked any English-language publication (Conway, Osprey, even Jane's) due to unfamiliarity. I doubt most of the writers there know Greek or have any actual experience of the Greek military, hence they must rely on secondary or tertiary sources themselves. Inevitably, errors creep in that way, despite their best efforts. Heck, you can find errors in names even in books and articles dealing with the German army, and that by authors who ostensibly can read German... That is all quite natural, and happens the other way round too, I dare say.

Now, concerning the issue at hand, here we have the navy website (its stability as a website and its frustratingly complicated URL structure do not affect the issue) stating the issue quite clearly. I know personal experience is not a WP:RS, but I can assure you that in almost twenty years of my reading relevant publications in the Greek press, specialist or not, the name Tjeld as a class designation was never used for the Greek boats. In addition, you have a Norwegian design which is quite obviously adopted by other NATO states, and in all of the latter under the Nasty designation. Why would Greece be any different than the US, Germany, or Turkey for that matter? If anything, it suggests that the common NATO name for this class is indeed Nasty.

Lastly, on the matter of my renaming, you are right that I should have contacted you right away with more details. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What I meant about the HN website was that however reliable the information might be, it is quite possible that it could disappear at a moments notice, leaving any material based on it unverifiable. Which is why other sources would be good. The HN article mentions a book by Paizis-Paradellis; do you have access to it? It's in English (according to the ISBN), but the nearest copy to me is in a library in Athens, apparently, which is a bit beyond my bus-pass range.

And I understand your frustration about stuff here being contrary to your personal experience; I remember my surprise at finding these ships, which I had always seen referred to as the Royal Sovereign class, turned out to be something else.

To clarify the Conway thing a bit; they describe these boats as Tjeld-type, not Tjeld-class; there's no suggestion there that is the name the HN gave them. What I'm not clear on is whether the HN referred to them as the Nasty-type (your first source) or the Nasty-class (your second) Or does τύπου also translate as class? And I'm also wondering whether the Greek navy uses class names much at all: This page (and this one) lists their ships simply as types (ie Freccia class, G-class) while Conway has them named (Ydra class and Vasiliefs Georgios class, resp). And there is a "Wild Beast" class (!!!) which Conway has as the Aetos class. In fact quite a few of them are different; the main source, again, seems to be Paizis-Paradellis (is that what these lists are based on?) while this website has much the same details as Conway (with the rather glaring exception of all the ships between 1922 and 1946!) You might know better than me...

Regardless, we probably aren't getting too far on the title issue. It feels odd to me to not use the title used by the main (in fact, sole) source for the material (though, as I said before, there's no problem about including the information you have in the text). Perhaps the best thing, if you feel the title is equally odd in your mind, is to bat it over to WP:RM to get a wider opinion on it. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously Conway is not the only source, and between what is essentially a tertiary source and the actual user of the boats, I think the latter should prevail by default. As I wrote above, I wouldn't rely too blindly on what non-Greek sources have to say about the modern Greek military. There simply is not enough familiarity with it, and errors (albeit usually minor ones) abound. I have no objection on a WP:RM, though. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I was intrigued about whether Conway is truly the only source, an a quick search in GBooks turns up quite a few: "TORPEDO BOATS [PT] (continued) Greek Navy Nasty", from The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World (2000), " four re- engined Nasty class boats from Norway" from The World's navies: an illustrated review of the navies of the world (1992), "FAST PATROL BOATS 6 "Nasty" Type General Ordered from Boat Services Limited, Mandal, Norway, in Mar. 1966 for delivery" Jane's Fighting Ships (1966), "MISSILE/TORPEDO/PATROL BOATS: 40 Included in the above number are: Osprey 55, Pyrpoletes, La Combattante II/III/IIIa, Tiger(Type S148), Esterel, Jaguar, Nasty, Asheville, Klasse-148." from Turkey & Greece: on the way to another war? (1999). On the other hand, Jane's Weapon Systems (1973) seems to prefer Tjeld type. Naval fast strike craft and patrol boats (1979) notably distinguishes the boats built in Norway (as Tjeld) from those for the other NATO members, including Greece (as Nasty class). Constantine ✍ 15:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, but if Conway is “essentially a tertiary source” (which is debatable) doesn't that make “the actual user of the boats” a primary source? And while you might think a primary source should prevail (which is not unreasonable) on WP it doesn't always work that way.

I notice, too, in your sources list JFS 1966 had “Nasty-type”; I found JFS 1974 had “Tjeld-type” (I don't know about in between) and again in 1989 and 90. It may be significant that 1966 was the year the Greek boats were still building. Also, I didn't follow your comments on “Fast Strike Craft and Patrol Boats” (1979); what I found (I assume it refers to the USN boats) says “torpedo-boat versions of almost identical design are in service with the Norwegian, Greek and Turkish navies...see separate entry for Tjeld class” (the one you found also refers to “series production of the Nasty class is currently underway at Taskizake Dockyard, Istanbul”; I cannot find any trace of those boats anywhere). Plus, in an impressive display of even-handedness, the “Defence and Foreign Affairs Handbook” (1980) lists 5 Tjeld-class FACs for Greece; in 1981 the same book lists “5 Nasty-class FACs”; make of that what you will...

I do take your point about the possibility of errors in translation, but I also wouldn't want to rely blindly on a Greek source simply because it was Greek, either.

I would still like to know about the difference in your first and second sources (above) regarding the word τύπου; the first [1], in Greek, uses τύπου, which translates as “type”; the second [2], in English, uses the word “class”; is that also τύπου in the Greek or is it a different word? Because “type” and “class” are not synonymous. This ship is described in the list article as being “Gearing class” (the source, I am assuming, is Paizis-Paradellis's book, which I also assume is a Greek source); but English-language usage would say “ex-Gearing class” (Gearing being a USN class name, not a Greek one) or maybe “Gearing-type”, and (if following US usage) would term them the “Themistoklis-class”, after the first ship commissioned. Similarly this one, listed as Hydra class is also (quite correctly) described as “MEKO 200-type” in Conway. For these boats, Nasty was the prototype, and the Tjeld's were the serial production design, with a bigger engine, so “Tjeld-type” is actually a more correct description, regardless of any class name given.

Regardless, there is enough reason to include the information on alternate names in the text, with sources, and to put the HN website pages in an external link section. As for changing the title, the RM suggestion still stands: If you think you have a better title, open an RM and present a case, and I'll present one for the present title; then we'll see where it goes.

I don't know if this matter is simply the difference between the o and the ω (a big diff in appearance but little diff in fact) or that between the s and the ς ( something subtle but significant); regardless, this conversation is already three times longer than the article itself, and while I'm all for dialogue to improve understanding and respect amongst editors (and which can sometimes even achieve that!) I'm starting to feel a I'm being a little self-indulgent. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding class and type, Greek sources don't really differ from English usage, but it is common for ships taken over from foreign service to retain their original type/class designation (cf. the Gearing destroyers) rather than being assigned a new Greek class name, and they are commonly referred to by type rather than class. Re "I also wouldn't want to rely blindly on a Greek source simply because it was Greek, either" and the first point, well, the question is about how the ships are named in Greek service. Therefore by common sense, the actual user of the ships gets to determine that, not any third-party publication (and in the case of Conway, it is very much a tertiary source; I am certain none of its authors set foot in Greece or in most of the countries described there to study the situation, but relied on extant English-language sources). Regarding the WP:RM, I think this is the best way forward, and I will initiate one later today. Constantine ✍ 11:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's probably the best way. I've added the details we've discussed already; if the page is moved they can be tweaked in line with that. Good luck! Xyl 54 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I suspect that the name Nasty was chosen by a Norwegian who did not know properly all the meaning of the English word "nasty". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Anthony: I didn't know, so I phoned a friend on this; the discussion is there if you are interested...Xyl 54 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This has been around for a long time, and if there is any consensus to move it, I can't see it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Greek Tjeld-type patrol boat → Greek Nasty-type patrol boat – Per the arguments and source survey listed in the talk page; English-language sources are inconsistent in usage, applying to the Greek vessels both the "Nasty" and the "Tjeld" name or even both at the same time. The actual user, the Hellenic Navy, uses "Nasty" throughout. Constantine ✍ 22:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Response: The title used the same as used by Conway's directory, the source for the rest of the information in the article. It is also the title used (for the most part) by Jane's directory. Titles should follow reliable sources.

The title does not claim to be the class name, only that these boats are the same type as the Tjeld's: As Nasty was a prototype boat, and the Tjeld the serial production design, the title is a more accurate description.

There is some ambivalence (on their website) whether the Hellenic Navy used "Nasty" as a class name, or simply as a type description; this (in Greek) has τύπου (“type”) while this, in English, has “class”, so usage by the actual user is not a reliable guide to what the title should be here. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"usage by the actual user is not a reliable guide to what the title should be here" come on, that is a red herring argument. The Greek original of the Fast Craft Command history also has τύπου, which is obviously translated in English version as "class". Whether that is correct or not is beside the point, as the main question here is the name applied to this group of boats; whether it is "class" or "type" is secondary. All other non-Norwegian users use "Nasty", and it is obvious that the HN does too. Constantine ✍ 10:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Constantine: The point of the Request Move is to get other peoples opinions on this; we already know that you and I disagree on it. So now we have both put in a brief outline of our positions, what say we pipe down and let someone else have a go? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Given the usual English meanings of the word "nasty", I suspect that this name was chosen by someone whose knowledge of English was imperfect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek Tjeld-type patrol boat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519150307/http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/en/organization/fleet-headquarters/fast-boats-command/history to http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/en/organization/fleet-headquarters/fast-boats-command/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

errors in dates

I noticed that there has to be at least five errors in dates near the end of this article and am sure it's an easy fix of a typo, but want to find verification on the dates before I correct them. The first error is in the final paragraph and is the final two sentences, stating that 4 of the boats were reengined in 1989, but then states that they were all stricken or disposed of by 1985 in the next sentence. Then it goes on to reiterate that same info 4 times in the chart that gives info about each boat in the class. I'm sure that it's meant to say 1995 instead of 85, but like I said, I want to verify that first. Doombringer6669 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)