Talk:Mighty Servant 2

Most famous job

An anonymous editor changed the sentence about MS2's haulage of FFG 58 from "most famous job" to "most famous job from an American viewpoint." I think the only job that could even possibly compare to the 1988 hauling of a U.S. warship was the one during which MS2 sank. Thoughts? PRRfan 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just working in Freeport shipyard, Grand Bahama. The Mighty Servant 2 was tied up there alive and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.229.26 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That must have been the MS III, as nr two is not with us anymore!! Thrust me, I was there on 02.11.99, when she tipped over.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.17.174 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=26.5282022&lon=-78.756094&z=16&l=0&m=a&v=2&search=freeport you can see it tied up. I'm working there again in Sept, I'll have another look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.110.76 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

USS Roberts in lead sentence

33. "Mighty Servant / USS Robards"

Hi the article is about the Mighty Servant, the USS Robards is part of her operational history and so are many other charters, These ship transport many naval vessels of several different countries as well as just the US but, it should not be attached to the opening sentence of the article specifically when there is a whole section on the US Navy ship.

Regards

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alphacatmarnie. A couple of things before we get to the meat of the discussion. First, I've moved your text from my Talk page to this Talk page, where any interested party might weigh in. Second, you seem to be unaware of how discussions of reversions proceed on Wikipedia. The ruling process is "BRD" — that is, 1) someone makes a Bold edit, 2) someone else Reverts it, and 3) the original (non-edited) text stands while interested editors Discuss the matter. Once I reverted your initial deletion, that's your cue not to re-revert, but to discuss it here.

On to the main point: it is quite common in Wikipedia articles about ships — to say nothing of people, places, and things — to note in the lead an event or other fact that brought the ship to worldwide attention and notability. You yourself note that the Roberts job merits its own section in the article, which itself is a pretty good argument for inclusion in the lead. And not to be unduly nitpicky, but your consistent misspelling of "Roberts" as "Robards" suggests that you may be unfamiliar with the frigate's place in maritime history. It was, among other things, the spark for one of the "Five Naval Battles that Shaped American History". Were it not for the Roberts, few outside the maritime world would have heard of MS2. PRRfan (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, when you mean other interested parties - do you mean Americans by chance?

And yes I am aware of edit wars.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear you know about the policies against edit-warring; I'll take your double-revert as an accidental lapse. As for "Americans," no. Photos of the MS2 lifting the Roberts were run in newspapers around the world; nothing else the ship did received nearly as much global notice. The result, again, is that if anyone outside the maritime industry has heard of MS2, it's very likely it's because of the Roberts job. That's pretty much the definition of a notable fact that belongs in the lead. PRRfan (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no rebuttal after a week, I've restored the ship's most noted job to the lead. PRRfan (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)And

And now Alphacatmarnie has reverted, again. Thought you knew about edit-warring? You're beginning to do it. So. It appears that you have more to add to the discussion? I'm certainly open to the argument that the Roberts job was not, by far, the MS2's most notable job. But I've provided citations for my case. You have, so far, provided none. PRRfan (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring - what you have to remember is that this website can be viewed by anyone in the entire world and clearly an opening paragraph should generally be about the ship specifically when she was launched, entered service and current status. It should not have a sentence about one reasonable insignificant US Navy vessel tacked onto the opening sentence - Sorry but these ships move many vessels from many different Navies from all around the globe, the Might Servant's also moves far larger and just as notable structures as part of their shipping charters so, are we going to add all of them onto the opening sentence?Continually adding one US naval vessel to the opening sentence could be clearly viewed as Americanizing an article when all articles are supposed to have 100% neutral points of views especially, when the US naval vessel in question clearly has it's own section within the main article further on. Alphacatmarnie (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

From the MoS: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Based on this I have restored the lead section, but as PRRfan also states I'm always open for changing it. If you want to remove the mention; fine. But if so, replace it by something equally notable and don't just remove valid content from the article. If you want to remove it just out of a fear of "Americanizing" the article, then I'll have to say that you're actually the one inserting a non-neutral point of view here, as the transportation of USS Roberts probably was _the_ event that lead to MS2 being known for the general public. Bjelleklang - talk 11:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am sticking by my action - this ship that it carried home is American and therefore only of general interest to the home nation - and certainly not in the UK and would not have world class news. As stated these Mighty Servant vessels carry carry many other naval vessels all over the world under various charter contracts. If the MS had carried one of the UK's Daring Class ships home then this would only be relevant to the UK and not the rest of the world. Alphacatmarnie 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

First off, it's not time to "stick by your action"; it's time to continue the discussion. (When you repeatedly make an edit despite the ongoing discussion, you are edit-warring.) Next, heed Bjelleklang's words: the Roberts job was the event that brought the MS2 to the world's attention. (I've added five non-U.S. citations as a sample of global media report and interest.) But here's your chance to win the argument: simply show, with the proper citations that are the currency of Wikipedia argument, that MS2 had some other job that got more worldwide attention. If you can do that, I'll concede that the Roberts job was not singularly notable. PRRfan (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A thought: is it the words "noted for" that is annoying you so? Would you prefer to change "...operated by Dockwise, noted for transporting USS Samuel B. Roberts..." to "operated by Dockwise. The ship drew worldwide attention in 1988 for transporting USS Samuel B. Roberts..."? PRRfan (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that is a better way to start the article. Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Wow, that was easy. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here.) PRRfan (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mighty Servant 2. 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/20090829110254/http://www2.dockwise.com/vessels/node/200?tab=factsandfigures to http://www2.dockwise.com/vessels/node/200?tab=factsandfigures
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204020951/http://www.kosori.org/02.R%26D/08_0107.asp to http://www.kosori.org/02.R%26D/08_0107.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203012847/http://www.kenyaengineer.co.ke/index.php/mr/engineering-services-reviews/1395-heavy-lift-ships to http://www.kenyaengineer.co.ke/index.php/mr/engineering-services-reviews/1395-heavy-lift-ships
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120712020433/http://ir.dockwise.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=208652&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1318616&highlight= to http://ir.dockwise.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=208652&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1318616&highlight=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815191944/http://www2.dockwise.com/vessels/node/201?tab=general to http://www2.dockwise.com/vessels/node/201?tab=general

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) 19:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)