Talk:Flag of convenience

Re section: Ratification of maritime conventions
I have made the headings in the graph (showing which countries have not ratified which conventions) into wikilinks, as I found it quite difficult to find the links to the articles about the conventions mentioned in the header of this graph, and I would like to alleviate others of that problem. CybergothiChé (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Americo-Liberian?
Why is Charles Taylor called Americo-Liberian Warlord? 80.4.19.128 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wiki-linked Americo-Liberian in the article, so people can click on it to learn more about the term. As far as the warlord part, that term seems to be widely used when referring to him, for example in the following article: .  Cheers.  Haus Talk 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Table "Non-ratification of International Conventions"
At least to me, the table is ambiguous. Does "yes" mean that a convention was ratified or, as the caption suggests, not ratified? How can this be made clearer? 2003:55:8C03:F383:401E:ADB4:A5C3:6394 (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point. Would this be less ambiguous? Davidships (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good solution. I updated the article.  217.239.23.103 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - deleting table from here now. Davidships (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead edit
I have removed the following recent edit from the Lead, but bring it here for consideration. ''Other flags of convenience include United Kingdom (through the Red Ensign group), Singapore and Netherlands. '' While recognising that it is cited to a RS (though incompletely), this material does not appear in the article itself. The source was published in 1981, but the addition is written as if it is current, and it also lacks explanation or context. I have not been able to access the source, but would be surprised if Carlisle wrote that the UK did anything of this nature "through the UK Red Ensign Group" (actually, just "Red Ensign Group", of which the UK is one member). Perhaps Notthebestusername could clarify? Davidships (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

as opposed to the convention, which is to simply render it as. This produces 🇲🇹 Malta (with a hidden piped link to Transport in Malta), rather than 🇲🇹 Malta (which links plainly to Malta).
 * There are several problems with this new practice you are trying to introduce and why we do not use it in Wikipedia:
 * The issues about flags of convenience intersect many aspects of a country, including "Human rights in X country", "Economy of X country", and "Politics of X country", well beyond simply "Transport in X country". It is simplistic to reduce it only one dimension and funnel readers to that aspect alone.
 * A merchant marine is merely the fleet of merchant ships registered to a country. As this very article has described, ships flying flags of convenience often contribute little to the transport or freight of the flag state itself, so it is at best only tangentially related to the article you are attempting to link it to. Many of the "Transport in X country" articles you were linking to had either minimal to no discussion about the merchant marine apart from a huge bunch of statistics dumped on them without context or analysis which is not how the article should be structured anyway.
 * It is a stylistic faux paus and highly inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia to link to a subtopic of a country next to its flag icon within a list, rather than the country itself. For example, note how entries in List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by system of government link directly to the country, rather than "Economy of X country" or "Politics of X country", respectively, even though those articles are far more focused and have a stronger case for linking to the subtopic than this one.
 * Finally, and probably most importantly, piping links to a "Transport in X country" under a link that merely states the country's name is misleading to readers. This is called an WP:EASTEREGG and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Readers who click on a link that says "Malta" would expect a link to article on the country of Malta, not a subtopic about the specific transportation systems of that country including its road networks and airports.
 * I hope this explanation helps. —Madrenergictalk 15:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed "Terrorism" scetion
This section seem to be very un-noteworthy. If the bill had passed, or even been voted on, maybe, but no.: In 2002 in the United States, Democratic senator John Breaux of Louisiana proposed a bill to prevent U.S. shipowners from using foreign flags, ostensibly as a counter-terrorism measure. " All sorts of bills get proposed in the US Congress, just being another one is not noteworthy. Carptrash (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "===Terrorism===


 * Agree - it was a low-level political initiative that attracted little support and disappeared. Davidships (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2019

 * 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: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Flag of convenience → Open Register – While better known to the public, the term "Flag of Convenience" is not neutral and is considered pejorative in the maritime industry as there are many good, morally valid reasons for choosing such a register beyond mere 'convenience'. The ITF uses it, but ITF is an advocacy organisation, which, for all its good work, cannot be considered neutral (and would not describe itself as such). The wider maritime industry uses the term "Open Register", as does the IMO, which, as the UN body regulating the industry, can be considered neutral and is incontestably official.

Patrick Neylan (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The uppercase "R" is certainly not appropriate, since this is not a proper noun. The proposed title would also seem to change the topic of the title from the practice of flag choice to the registry service that allows such choices. It is also not clear that it is very WP:RECOGNIZABLE for most readers. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per clear WP:COMMONNAME, as seen on this Google Ngram. Only shipowners who use it may consider the term pejorative (for obvious reasons). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose: I do not see this as 'change of topic' - in this context flag=register (a French-flag ship is the same as a French-registered ship) - both titles are looking at the same thing - a ship-register that can be chosen by non-nationals. But FoC has come to be used pejoratively, as the article notes, and demonised by POV use. Although more recognisable to the general public, and more used by RS, FoC is not a neutral term, so not ideal for an article title. Open register is neutral and its official use is not in doubt.  However WP:POVNAMING is clear that where the subject is mainly known by a single common name, even if non-neutral, that should be used.  Davidships (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Flag of Convenience is the phrase in general use and specific, open register is used for many other things. Lyndaship (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current term is widely recognised by the non-specialist reader. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Vast preponderance of academic research on the subject uses flag of convenience (including UN publications). For period since 2015, Google scholar shows 1,080 hits for specific "flag of convenience" shipping search, whereas an register" shipping search produces 77. FWIW "flag of convenience" appears repeatedly in news bulletins of the IMO - it's hardly so prejudicial that the IMO cannot mention it.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name (FoC) was not originally pejorative, that's a bolt on. In any event many good reasons already given here, and I would suggest if it were changed to the title your suggesting the readership numbers would crash. OR as a title might mean something within the industry, but it can hardly be called descriptive and specific. Better left as a re-direct. Broichmore (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.