This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Marlborough (F233). 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No consensus to move in this discussion (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
HMS Marlborough (F233) → Almirante Condell (FF-06) – This is a warship formerly known as HMS Marlborough, but acquired by the Chilean Navy in 2008 and renamed Almirante Condell. Almirante Condell is her current name. I'm unable to move the page because the target page already exists as a redirect. Af1391 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". At present, based on article content (and for readers of enWP), HMS Marlborough remains the best-known name. (That may, of course, change in the future.) - Davidships (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)) . Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. |
– All three of these military ships are Type 23 frigates (Duke class) that entered service with the British Royal Navy during the 90s, being named Marlborough, Norfolk and Grafton, and were renamed when they were transfered to the Chilean Navy in the mid 2000s. All of them are still in active service in the Chilean navy, so their Chilean names are their current names, and all of them have had longers careers in the Chilean Navy than in the Royal Navy.
Regarding policy-based arguments, WP:NAMECHANGES, which is an official Wikipedia guideline (which carries more weight than naming conventions for specific subjects) generally advises that, when the subject of an article undergoes a change of name, sources written after the name change should be given more weight. In other words, the Wikipedia policy is that the name currently in use is the name that should be used in article titles. WP:SHIPNAME (a topic-specific naming convention that carries less weight than a Wikipedia policy) advises that a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name. Logically, and as per WP:NAMECHANGES, the best-known name refers to the name that's the most common at the current time in current sources, not to the name that was the most common two decades ago. No current source calls any of these Chilean ships with their former Royal Navy names when speaking about current events. It must be noted that the examples that are mentioned in WP:SHIPNAME for ship name changes refer to: 1) historical ships that no longer exist, so they have no "current" name; and 2) aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, a ship that was Soviet and now is Russian, with the example stating that its article title should say "Russian". In other words, WP:SHIPNAME is mostly meant to solve the problem of historical ships that changed name at some point of their careers. When it provides an example for a ship currently in service, it prefers the current name.
These name changes were initially proposed as technical moves because I was unable to move the pages due to the target pages already existing as redirects (the proposed moves had been performed years ago, but were reverted by a user who provided no reasons). However, a debate emerged, with some users arguing that the words "Chilean frigate" should be added in front of the proposed names as per WP:SHIPNAME (which is correct and I thank them for it), and only one user arguing that the old Royal Navy names should be kept. This last user claimed, as per WP:SHIPNAME, that the old names were the best-known names, but provided no evidence of current sources calling them by the old names (It would be truly amazing to find a current news article calling a Chilean warship by the name it had when it was in service with the Royal Navy almost two decades ago). Instead, the user argued that the English Wikipedia pages have more content about the careers of the ships under the Royal Navy than under the Chilean Navy. However, this isn't evidence that the currently best-known names are the British names. This is only the result of the obvious loss of interest in these ships that english-speaking users experienced when they were transfered to a non-english-speaking country. If anything, editors should expand the Chilean careers of the ships instead of acting as if they never even happened.
Since technical moves are only meant for solving technical issues with non-contested renames, the requests were rejected. Therefore, I'm reopening the discussion as a regular requested move instead of a requested technical move. Af1391 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)