Talk:USNS Earl Warren

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207) → USNS Earl Warren – The title of the article should be USNS Earl Warren as per WP:NCSHIPS, but USNS Earl Warren is redirected to John Lewis-class replenishment oiler now. Maritime guy (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. NCShips is just a convention, and a poorly crafted one at that. Changing every USN & USCG article in blind subservience to it does not improve these articles in any demonstrable way. If anything, it's a reduction in usefulness and quality. (jmho) - wolf 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The name of USNS Earl Warren is in NCSHIPS lines and the renaming of the article is also strictly in the rules of NCSHIPS when there is NCSHIPS as a convention for naming articles about ships. And if you disagree with part or all of NCSHIPS, you should move to the talk page of NCSHIPS or other talk pages in the WP:SHIPS, instead of here. Maritime guy (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

NCShips is not a policy, just a local wikiproject convention page with a narrow scope. Each article still stands on its own, this move is contested and you need consensus here to move it. You need to wait and see if anyone else posts here (since you can't request help from others, as per WP:CANVASS, which is a site-wide behavioural guideline), so be patient and see what develops. Either it'll be moved or it won't. - wolf 04:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm inviting Davidships, Llammakey, and Sturmvogel 66 to join in the discussion on whether to move USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207) to USNS Earl Warren for the article and welcome more individuals to join the discussion on this page, helping to reach a consensus. Maritime guy (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you MG, but am travelling until Sunday night, so should be able to comment then. Davidships (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maritime guy: what part of WP:CANVASS don't you get? Or did you not bother to read it? The rules apply to you, same as everyone else. - wolf 01:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: There is stated on WP:CANVASS that it is allowed for appropriate notification to other individuals to join the discussion, and the specification on it is that allowing invitations to other individuals with nonpartisan (on the points in the discussion) to join the discussion via the neutral posting in the open but limited range. So am I violating one of these rules as I'm just openly inviting three members from the WP:SHIPS and welcoming more other individuals here, with neutral words, to join this discussion? Or you are expressing negative views here as well as on my talk page with my invitations because you have anticipated their opinions (maybe some reasons?) on the issue related to this renaming? Maritime guy (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maritime guy: Why those particular three editors? (And you don't need to WP:PING me as I'm watching this page.) - wolf 21:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's because the invitation is limited and they, as members of the WP:SHIPS, are more active on enwp in very recent times. That is all. Maritime guy (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So the fact that, for example: Llammakey, who regularly removes hull codes from ship article titles, almost a dozen in just the past month alone, didn't play into your choice of "non-partisan" editors at all, huh? That's why canvassing is not allowed. You posted your request, which is also listed WP:RM, a major project page watched by thousands of editors, so if anyone is interested in taking part here, they will. What is not needed and not permitted, is you going out and notifying specific editors you think will !vote your way. Maybe the reason people aren't showing up in droves to support your request is because on US military ships, hull numbers are generally included, along with the prefix, as part of the ship's name. As it is now, we have a mish-mash of USN/MCS & USCG articles, some with hull codes and some without... and it looks ridiculous. Not to mention that it can be confusing for readers who are't familiar with US military ship identification. You haven't even provided a reason for the change, other than "cuz ncships". Maybe you should look into that a little more... - wolf 03:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support move - Hull identification numbers are just used for disambiguation purposes and per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, if there is only article with that name, there is no need for disambiguation. Now WP:DISAMBIGUATION is just a guideline itself, but, it is sitewide, not a local consensus. The reason why NC:SHIPS is worded the way it is, was to bring it into line with the rest of wikipedia instead of just those fans of the US Navy getting special permission. I'm all for keeping the hull code in the article, but not in the title if it doesn't need to be. However, there should be a redirect with the hull code to the article for those like wolf, who are US Navy specialists and may want to look up a ship by hull number. Also just fyi, the editor did not canvass as they did not do it correctly. They did not ping us since they did not @ us. I stumbled upon this page entirely of my own. Llammakey (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, I notified both WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. Llammakey (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Llammakey. On the argument that NCSHIPS is “just a convention” , no, it’s a WP:GUIDELINE; we don’t just ignore it because we WP:DONTLIKEIT. It is also not a wiki project page, it is a subpage of the broader naming conventions. These pages represent broad, project-level consensus; they are not so easily waved away. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support - as long as there has not been any other USNS Earl Warren, then disambiguation is not required. Support conditional on that being met, otherwise the disambiguation is needed. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the three views immediately above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - hull numbers are used for disambiguation for modern ships just as years are used for age of sail ships. If there are not multiple ships going by the name USS XXX, USNS XXX, etc, then we do not need to include the hull number to disambiguate the ship. Anyone looking for the ship will find it without the (frankly confusing to the casual reader, "T-AO-207" indeed!) disambiguation if it is the only ship to go under that name. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per P-C and Llammakey; there is no need for the disambiguator in this case -Ljleppan (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support move - cannot find evidence of any other ship known as USNS Earl Warren; it's best not to include ancillary information such as the hull number in the article title if it can be avoided. Leave the hull number for the main article text. Hog Farm _Talk 13:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. No need for the appendage. Kablammo (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2023 (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.

I entirely support the move to USNS Earl Warren, because WP is written for generalists, not specialists, though a redirect should be maintained for hull number. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, we're left with a mix of articles - some with a hull code, some without because on many the hull code cant't be removed, and it looks ridiculous. (Add to that articles like Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, when "Liaoning 16" would be more "precise".) I see when the note on ncships was arbitrarily added almost 10 years ago, but don't see the RfC that determined just how ncships' was written. This is poor policy leading to silly looking changes, it needs to be addressed, and not just for USN ships, but for all ship articles. The simple fact is prefixes and hull codes or launch years are a part of commonly used ship identification. (And Llammakey, you say you didn't get the ping, but it appears to have been added correctly and Davidships apparently got it. And you showing up here is what lead to this sudden slew of last minute !votes... but anyway). - wolf 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wolf, when are you going to stop misrepresenting things? It's starting to look deliberate. First, it was that NCSHIPS is "just a convention", and a "local wikiproject convention page", neither of which are remotely accurate. Now, it's that the language in question "was arbitrarily added"; there's discussion on the topic in the archives, if you bothered to look for it.

Here's a suggestion: stop complaining about a naming convention you don't like and try to change it. Otherwise, drop the stick. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look. Thanks for stopping by, PB, always a pleasure... - wolf 23:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it is - if only you had thought to look before you cast aspersions on another editor... Parsecboy (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If I could show you my alerts wolf, I would, because I never got any ping. Also wolf, that is why I agreed with you about keeping the hull numbers for USN ships in the article and a redirect. Because some people do look for specific ships using them, and if it is in the article, it will appear in a search. Llammakey (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No need, I believe you and apologize if you were insulted. I've seen the quality of work you've put into this project for a long time, with a fair and level-head at that, and I should've left this subject be once the RM was closed. I disagree with the rules regarding ship article names, both how they came to be and how they are so... rigerously enforced. But I should take any disagreements to the proper venue. Cheers - wolf 03:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

oops, forgot to pign. @Llammakey:. - wolf 04:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)