Talk:HMS Agincourt (S125)/Archive 1

Propose to call this Astute Boat 7
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2015/december/14/151214-third-astute-submarine-formally-handed-over-to-the-royal-navy

and other sources

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/astute-class-submarines-enhanced

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/140896/uk-commits-additional-%C2%A32.7-bn-to-astute-submarine-program.html

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Major-Projects-Appendicies-and-project-summary-sheets.pdf

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2014-01-17b.182980.h

call it just Boat 7. It hasn't been named yet.Phd8511 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * She was named Ajax and was referred to as such in a lot of sources, but since FRES grabbed Ajax in September 2015 the official sources are all calling her unnamed. It's not a biggy, even though FRES has grabbed a lot of Leander-type names there are still plenty of Amphion/T21 names to recycle. Astute Boat 7 would work as a WP:COMMONNAME, or British submarine S125 if you wanted to be a bit more formal. Either work for me.2.97.175.185 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. It was named Boat 7 by official sources before SCOUT SV was named AJAX. See Hansard.http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22astute%22+%22boat+7%22Phd8511 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously they get referred to as Boat X before they have a name - hence in your link the 5/Sep/11 answer names them up to Audacious and then refers to Boats 5/6/7. A year later Anson is named in Parliament. But this leaflet from 2011 shows that the RN was already referring to Ajax in official "retail" material. They've done a pretty good hygiene job of eliminating Ajax from gov.uk websites, but here's a mention from 2014. And the name was common on reliable third party sources. Since Anson was laid down in late 2011, it looks like Parliamentary answers refer to them as Boat X until they are laid down, regardless of whether a name has been publicised elsewhere.92.20.136.54 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

propose to retain Ajax

 * There is a recent source that states this boat as being "unnamed". The same source also mentions the army using the name Ajax. There is no mention of the Navy withdrawing the name of any name change due to the army's choice. There are still plenty of refs that state this boat as being named "Ajax" and wikipedia goes by sources. This single new one is not enough to counter all the others. But this is worth watching. If the navy officially withdraws the name, then a move to a new article title would be appropriate (ie: "Astute class boat 7" or something like that), or if they change to a new name then obviously this page would follow suit. There is too much content for AfD (if anyone were thinking that) so it's best to leave the page as is until more sources come along. - the WOLF  child  05:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources stating the name of this boat as "Ajax";


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/
 * http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HMS-Agamemnon-S124
 * http://www.military-today.com/navy/astute_class.htm
 * http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/astute-buy-britain-spends-big-on-its-next-submarines-07635/
 * http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22hms%22%2B%22ajax%22

The source used in a recent edit summary, where "Ajax" was removed from this page, simply says the boat "is yet to be officially named". The source is also undated. Unless there is a reliable source that states the Navy has elected to change or remove the name, and that is the current status of the boat, then there is no basis for us to remove the name here. - the WOLF  child  03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is nonsense. It was named Boat 7 by official sources before SCOUT SV was named AJAX. See Hansard.http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22astute%22+%22boat+7%22Phd8511 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You people are not sharing accurate facts.Phd8511 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't "nonsense". The "theyworkforyou" ref you're using also lists articles stating the boats name as "Ajax". You put "Boat 7" in that site's search box and you got "Boat 7". When you put in in "Ajax"... guess what you get...


 * And yes, we are "sharing accurate facts"... by way of accurate sources. That's what Wikipedia goes by. And you shouldn't be changing article content when there is an ongoing discussion about that content on the article's talk page, nor should you be spreading that discussion across multiple talk pages. - the WOLF  child  11:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It is Boat 7 not Ajax
None of the sources you list are official sources and Hansard show the name as Boat 7.Phd8511 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we keep the discussion in one place? - the WOLF  child  11:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are after official sources, is the Royal Navy official enough for you? We  are not disputing that some sources now refer to her merely as boat 7, but you should not pretend that she was never previously officially referred to as Ajax. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Further, we have to stop guessing that the army's scout vehicle of the same name has anything to do with this boat's name. Unless there are reliable sources stating that "the navy changed the name because of the army vehicle", then we shouldn't be adding anything about that here, per WP:OR. - the WOLF  child  12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is why I was somewhat surprised by  to Astute-class submarine which reinserted that fallacy. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I missed that. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  12:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * .Phd8511 (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Look, you need to stop editing this page to your personal preferences and start discussing the content on the talk page. At what point do you realize that several experienced editors here disagree with you? Please stop reverting everyone, repeatedly jamming in your own edits and have a look at the following policies and guidelines;
 * WP:BRD
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:OR
 * WP:RS
 * WP:EW
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:AGF
 * Now, when you get blocked for disruptive editing, you can't claim "I didn't know the rules". - the WOLF  child  15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How about I lock the page so nobody edits it? Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to this uninvolved outsider that there's acceptable evidence that the boat is, or has been, named Ajax (S125), and there's also acceptable evidence that the boat hasn't been named beyond "boat 7". Either title is valid, so there's no point in altering the existing title, given that the lede clearly states the alternative positions. This dispute could be resolved easily by asking the Navy to clarify the current position! Someone must know a RN submariner who could get an authoritative statement? (That would not be "original research". This is a matter of fact. WP:PRIMARY states the policy: "A primary source may [only] be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") Stanning (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Naming dispute - time for an RfC?
There is a dispute over the name of this boat which affects the content of this page, as well as the Astute-class submarine page. There are some sources that state the name as "Ajax", and that is the current page title. An editor has produced sources that state the boat is simply called "Boat 7" and states it was never officially named. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could review the comments and sources here and write a nice neutral RfC, so that we can hopefully find consensus on the matter and put it to rest? Thank you -  the WOLF  child  15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We should keep in mind WP:OFFICIALNAME -- it doesn't matter what official names are, it only matters what the commonly used name in reliable sources are -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was called "Ajax" in several reliable sources. That's why this article was created with the name. Multiple reliable sources still have it named "Ajax", so per WP:COMMONNAME, that's the name we should be using. - the WOLF  child  05:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed Boat 7
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/march/18/160318-hms-artful

"The next two submarines in the Class, Audacious and Anson, are currently being built in Barrow, with Agamemnon and the unnamed Boat 7 to follow."

I don't know how much clearer I can be. This submarine has not ever been named.Phd8511 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (UTC)


 * As has already been discussed here, there are plenty of sources that state both ways and there has been no definite or conclusive proof to resolve the dispute either way. The article has long been titled "Ajax" and there is no consensus to change it. There is no need to get upset about this, it isn't hurting anything or anyone and it'll get sorted out sooner or later. - the WOLF  child  03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An "unnaming" is not the sort of thing that gets a press release, so you have to look carefully at the timings. Third party sources won't pay that close attention unless they're "kicked" with an official announcement, which gives them an inertia in favour of the status quo from a year ago - after all the RN had been using the Ajax name since 2011. But if you look closely at official announcements from the RN and BAE they were quite happy to use the name Ajax up until about this time last year (when the Army's biggest procurement took the name Ajax) - but not since. So it's one of those where although superficially there are two possible names, but more careful study points in only one direction. However, this is all moot, it won't be long until the keel is laid down and she's officially named. 92.20.136.54 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on HMS Ajax (S125). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140605101803/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/the-equipment/submarines/astute-class to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/submarines/astute-class

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Name for boat 7
The latest Navy News has an article about naming vessels that specifically mentions this boat, and I've added the comment to the article. The article assumes that the boat's name is not yet public knowledge. "Ajax" could be seen as a "bold choice" in the metaphorical sense that the Greek hero is a model of bravery, but not in the literal sense that there is anything unusual or unconventional about the decision. But the reference to "our closest international partners" is like something out of a cryptic crossword. I suppose it could be a reference to Ajax Amsterdam, since the Royal Marines work very closely with the Netherlands Marine Corps, and therefore you could say that the Dutch are the RN's closest partners. But normally you'd think of the special relationship. The thought that springs to mind would be naming the boat after an American with British links, which would certainly be a bold choice, and would follow the example of the US Navy in naming a ship after a Briton. But I can't think of an obvious candidate beginning with A. Abraham Lincoln, I suppose, but four years of submarine operations aren't really a close connection with the UK. Argonaut has been used by both navies in the past. Surely it's not going to be the Princess Meghan?! More seriously, it does suggest that the article should be renamed to "Astute Class Boat 7" or a similar title, since the article confirms that there isn't yet an official name. Is there consensus for that? Matt's talk 14:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're replying to an issue that was raised almost 2 years ago and hasn't been discussed in about a year and a half (see Talk:HMS Ajax (S125)/Archive 1). One person was pushing to have every mention of the name ""Ajax" completely removed from any page related to boat 7. He was the only one though. He found a single article that he was subjectively relying on, as it wasn't definitive. Others here cited articles that were definitive that the name was indeed going to be "Ajax". This fellow kept fighting on, but without any support, and then it was discovered that he was a ban-evading sock, and he got blocked. The consensus has since been to leave the related pages as they are. If, somehow, it turns out that boat 7 get s a different name later on, then we can make any necessary changes then. It's fine as it is for now. - the WOLF  child  15:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * HMS Arizona might be an interesting way to reciprocate the Churchill - it's a proper battleship name (like Anson etc) and it would get the US out of a bit of a hole that they have in regard to USS Arizona being one of the state names with one of the longest gaps since the last ship, but the Pearl Harbor connection means they're reluctant to get a new one. It would certainly be "bold" and "raise eyebrows"! Going back to the Ajax name - as far as I can see there's no official MoD source referring to HMS Ajax in over two years, the official name seems to be "Astute Boat 7" (eg NAO and the official position in recent government sources is that she is "yet to be named". So I think there's a pretty good case for Wikipedia following current government naming and renaming to Astute Boat 7. Of course, one reason they may not be in any hurry to name her is the current budget situation - as per that NAO link "In 2016-17, the forecast 10-year costs of the Dreadnought and Astute projects increased again, rising by £575.5 million and £365.3 million, respectively (total of £941 million). Cost growth in the Astute project has resulted in the final boat, Astute Boat 7, exceeding its existing budget". That's the context for eg the Barrow MP claiming "Industry and the MoD privately admit their ability to fund boat 7 is in doubt" and newspaper claims that the RN is talking about pushing her back by 5 years or cancelling altogether. Obviously only the NAO stuff is really suitable for the article, but it may be worth keeping an eye out for anything tangible on the current thinking about the timetable/cancellation. Le Deluge (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I missed something, but are there any sources suggesting that the RN is considering a name for boat 7 with "American ties" such as "Arizona"...? AFAIK, there are enough, reliable secondary sources that we don't need an "official source from the gov't to confirm" the name. However, if there was a gov't source that confirmed that boat 7 wasn't going to be named "Ajax", that would be different. But right there is no reason to rename the the page. - the WOLF  child  09:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Arizona idea was just my personal speculation of the kind of name that might fit "an unashamedly bold choice that will perhaps raise a few eyebrows but is entirely in keeping with the example set by our closest international partners" per that Navy News piece. But I think your argument not to rename shows no understanding of how these things work. This isn't something that people can do independent journalism on, all those secondary sources are basing their name on government documents from over 2 years ago. Specialist defence sources now follow the government line of calling it Astute Boat 7, even if the wider press may still use Ajax. The only reliable source of information on the name of this submarine is the MoD, and whilst they called her HMS Ajax at one point, for the last 2 years the MoD have only been using Astute Boat 7. I think we should follow that official usage. Le Deluge (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It now appears that the name will be Agincourt (which will raise an eyebrow or two with our French allies). The BBC have a report at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44102308 but we can probably wait until the Defence Secretary actually makes his speech. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)