This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS Robert Smalls article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 12 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to USS Chancellorsville. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Page needs to be updated as C'ville no longer is homeported in Japan and has different commanding officer from crew swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.111.20 ( talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead includes this statement:
Is there a citation for this odd assertion? The USS Pearl Harbor article, for example, does not claim that that ship honors "a Japanese victory".
This page at Navy Dot Mil says that the ship is named after the Battle of Chancellorsville. That seems more like it. If nobody objects, I'll edit this article to say the same. TypoBoy ( talk) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Some eager users have been making edits that claim the ship has already changed names. It hasn't. The decision to change the name was announced only few days ago, and as per the USNI News source (dated 27 February 2023) attached to the article supporting the announcement;
The Navy did not give a timeline for formally renaming the ship, which is currently based in Japan.
“The logistical aspects associated with renaming the ship will begin henceforth and will continue until completion with minimal impact on operations and the crew,” reads a statement from the Navy.
When the actual name change takes place, I'm sure there will be a formal announcement, and possibly a ceremony, which will be reported in reliable sources, at which point, the appropriate changes will be made to this and other related arricles. - wolf 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The Navy's official website and Facebook page for CG62 has already changed the ship's name to the USS Robert Smalls. I suggest this page reflects the Navy's change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:681:7FD0:81F9:D05A:1FED:F70F ( talk) 09:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a comment regarding the name change at WT:SHIPS, seeking feedback from the community, that may hopefully lead to a consensus on how to proceed.
hydrothermal vent
|
---|
Though on a personal note, I think the Navy screwed up here. Given all the effort that went into the commission, and what is at stake regarding it's decisions, not to memtion the ridiculous choice to name this boat after this man. He deserves to have a new ship named for him, like one of the John Lewis-class or something. He earned it. Instead, they give him this rusted out cruiser, past it's life span, that will be scrapped in a couple years. What kind of message does that send? They should've just stuck a generic name like "Liberty" on thiw ship and be done with it. What a farce. Sorry... end of rant. Thanks - wolf 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
I have also posted a link to the WT:SHIPs post at WT:MILHIST. fyi - wolf 05:32 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Are y'all kidding me? What valid reason do you have not to move the page? As stated in the article, the rename was made without a ceremony, and all official records online have already been updated. It's time this is too. ɱ (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
USS Robert Smalls → USS Chancellorsville – The requested "new name" is actually the original name. It was changed despite an active discussion taking place at WT:SHIPS that the mover was aware of and choose to bypass. There are other options that have been used in identical situations that should be given the opportunity to be discussed and considered, (eg: USS New York (ACR-2), HMS Ocean (L12) & Atlântico, USCGC Douglas Munro (WHEC-724) and MV Astoria), to name a few. If a decision, supported by consensus, isn't forth-coming after seven days, then (as I have already suggested) the issue should go to an RfC. (Or RM, but this same issue involves two articles, so an RfC could apply to both). The mover cited "wp:namechange" as a reason for the move, without clarifying how it applied. When asked earlier, another user's reply would fail wp:crystal. However, this move does fail wp:commonname and for all these reasons, it should be moved back. Thank you. - wolf 06:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ The ed17: - the entire history of the ship has been changed, removing instances "Chancellorsville" and replacing them with "Robert Smalls", and not just before the name change, but all the way back to the comissioning?
USS Robert Smalls didn't do those things, she didn't exist before 1 March 2023. Every sourced entry in the history up until that date is about USS Chancellorsville. I get that name puts a lot of people off and we're all glad it been changed, (yes me included), but these changes to the history are wrong, they're disingenuos, confusing, and they are not supported by the sourcing. The history should be changed back to the way it was.
Just as a suggestion, perhaps have two sub-sections under "History", one as "USS Robert Smalls: 1 March 2023 to present", where we add sourced entries about USS Robert Smalls activities, as they become available. The other one is "USS Chancellorsville: 4 November 1989 to 28 March 2023" where we add all the sourced entries of USS Chancellorsville's activities. I think that'll make more sense. We can just pretend Chancellorsville never existed, and the ship was named Robert Smalls since the beginning. - wolf 11:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS Robert Smalls article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 12 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to USS Chancellorsville. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Page needs to be updated as C'ville no longer is homeported in Japan and has different commanding officer from crew swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.111.20 ( talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The lead includes this statement:
Is there a citation for this odd assertion? The USS Pearl Harbor article, for example, does not claim that that ship honors "a Japanese victory".
This page at Navy Dot Mil says that the ship is named after the Battle of Chancellorsville. That seems more like it. If nobody objects, I'll edit this article to say the same. TypoBoy ( talk) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Some eager users have been making edits that claim the ship has already changed names. It hasn't. The decision to change the name was announced only few days ago, and as per the USNI News source (dated 27 February 2023) attached to the article supporting the announcement;
The Navy did not give a timeline for formally renaming the ship, which is currently based in Japan.
“The logistical aspects associated with renaming the ship will begin henceforth and will continue until completion with minimal impact on operations and the crew,” reads a statement from the Navy.
When the actual name change takes place, I'm sure there will be a formal announcement, and possibly a ceremony, which will be reported in reliable sources, at which point, the appropriate changes will be made to this and other related arricles. - wolf 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The Navy's official website and Facebook page for CG62 has already changed the ship's name to the USS Robert Smalls. I suggest this page reflects the Navy's change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:681:7FD0:81F9:D05A:1FED:F70F ( talk) 09:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a comment regarding the name change at WT:SHIPS, seeking feedback from the community, that may hopefully lead to a consensus on how to proceed.
hydrothermal vent
|
---|
Though on a personal note, I think the Navy screwed up here. Given all the effort that went into the commission, and what is at stake regarding it's decisions, not to memtion the ridiculous choice to name this boat after this man. He deserves to have a new ship named for him, like one of the John Lewis-class or something. He earned it. Instead, they give him this rusted out cruiser, past it's life span, that will be scrapped in a couple years. What kind of message does that send? They should've just stuck a generic name like "Liberty" on thiw ship and be done with it. What a farce. Sorry... end of rant. Thanks - wolf 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) |
I have also posted a link to the WT:SHIPs post at WT:MILHIST. fyi - wolf 05:32 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Are y'all kidding me? What valid reason do you have not to move the page? As stated in the article, the rename was made without a ceremony, and all official records online have already been updated. It's time this is too. ɱ (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 17:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
USS Robert Smalls → USS Chancellorsville – The requested "new name" is actually the original name. It was changed despite an active discussion taking place at WT:SHIPS that the mover was aware of and choose to bypass. There are other options that have been used in identical situations that should be given the opportunity to be discussed and considered, (eg: USS New York (ACR-2), HMS Ocean (L12) & Atlântico, USCGC Douglas Munro (WHEC-724) and MV Astoria), to name a few. If a decision, supported by consensus, isn't forth-coming after seven days, then (as I have already suggested) the issue should go to an RfC. (Or RM, but this same issue involves two articles, so an RfC could apply to both). The mover cited "wp:namechange" as a reason for the move, without clarifying how it applied. When asked earlier, another user's reply would fail wp:crystal. However, this move does fail wp:commonname and for all these reasons, it should be moved back. Thank you. - wolf 06:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ The ed17: - the entire history of the ship has been changed, removing instances "Chancellorsville" and replacing them with "Robert Smalls", and not just before the name change, but all the way back to the comissioning?
USS Robert Smalls didn't do those things, she didn't exist before 1 March 2023. Every sourced entry in the history up until that date is about USS Chancellorsville. I get that name puts a lot of people off and we're all glad it been changed, (yes me included), but these changes to the history are wrong, they're disingenuos, confusing, and they are not supported by the sourcing. The history should be changed back to the way it was.
Just as a suggestion, perhaps have two sub-sections under "History", one as "USS Robert Smalls: 1 March 2023 to present", where we add sourced entries about USS Robert Smalls activities, as they become available. The other one is "USS Chancellorsville: 4 November 1989 to 28 March 2023" where we add all the sourced entries of USS Chancellorsville's activities. I think that'll make more sense. We can just pretend Chancellorsville never existed, and the ship was named Robert Smalls since the beginning. - wolf 11:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)