Talk:Peruvian frigate Apurímac

About the "BAP" Prefix

The prefix "BAP" was not used by the Peruvian Navy until the XX Century, that´s why i don´t use it. I suggest return the article to their original name, because exist other articles on Wikipedia about warships which don't include the prefix of their navies for the same reason than i don't use it for this article. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yes I'm aware that the prefix didn't come into use until later, but the editorial practice here is to back date the prefix so that ships that didn't actually carry the prefix do indeed use it. So the prefix HMS did not come into use until the 1780s, but ships like HMS Ark Royal (1587) carry the HMS prefix. I can understand why you thought that it should be at Apurimac (frigate), but this title breaks with our conventions anyway. If the Peruvian Navy did not use prefixes, it would be at 'Peruvian frigate Apurimac'. As it does, and since our policy is to backdate, we use BAP Apurimac, which incidentally is what the Spanish wikipedia also use as a title. This convention has been standardised at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), so would you object to moving it back? Benea (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your copy-and-paste moves for the time being, as these should never be done as it confuses the page history of an article, which must always be retained. And anyway as I have pointed out, the current title is not in keeping with our standardised guidelines. You say you have seen articles about ships that don't have prefixes in their names? This is probably because the Navies in question don't use prefixes, (German battleship Bismarck) for example, because the Kriegsmarine did not use prefixes. Or the article may be badly titled anyway and in need of review. Can you give me some specific examples? Benea (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right, but i think than Wikipedia have to reconsider that practice, because is historically inaccurate, sorry for the edits and thanks for your interest. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Conways 1906-21

This book lists Apurimac as serving as a training ship from 1890 & being stricken ~1915. Is this just totally wrong? What happened to all the Peruvian ships scuttled at Callao in 1881? Were some raised and repaired? Tx! (User SpookyMulder, who has a log-in problem at the moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.106.53 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, and yes, Conways is absolutely wrong. The Apurimac was set on fire and scuttled in the Callao harbour, along with the remains of the Peruvian Navy: The trasnports Limeña, Oroya, Chalaco and Talisman, the captured Chilean transport Rimac, the corvette Union (which was in bad shape after support months of bombardment, and also as a consequence of her last mission, the double rupture of the blockade of Arica), the coastal monitor Atahualpa, and other minor ships and pontoons. As far I know, the only hip raised was the transport Rimac. If you have more question, please ask with confidence. Greetings!--Cloudaoc (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)