Talk:HMS Marlborough (F233)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212080043/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F410D168-EB00-48B8-9E15-4E741F4601F9/0/20070511_Preview_May07.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F410D168-EB00-48B8-9E15-4E741F4601F9/0/20070511_Preview_May07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2024

 * 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: 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.&#32;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)
 * Per WP:NC-SHIPS, the article title should be Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) for ships of a navy that does not use a prefix. Llammakey (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Ships has been notified of this discussion. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 15:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Also per WP:NC-SHIPS "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)


 * Support (move to Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) per Llammakey) - David hasn't provided any convincing evidence one way or the other that Marlborough is better known than Amirante Condell. That the British section of text is longer than the Chilean part doesn't mean a whole lot. As far as policy-based arguments, WP:NAMECHANGES, which is WP:POLICY (and carries more weight than a naming convention) generally advises the opposite. Subjects of articles that changed names should generally default to the new name unless the preponderance of sources continue to use the old name. Given that post-name-change references don't refer to this vessel still as HMS Marlborough, we shouldn't either in the article title. Parsecboy (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting perspective - in my comparatively short time here I have seen the NC-SHIPS as an attempt to apply the policy in WP:CRITERIA to ship articles, bearing in mind that ships (particularly merchant ships) frequently change names for various reasons, and may not even trade under some. At a quick glance that part of NC-SHIPS seems to have been developed somewhat earlier than the introduction of name-change provisions in WP-NC. Whether the  mismatch you highlight was discussed or resolved back then I have no idea - and here is not the place to develop that. As it happens, in a completely different context, I opened a thread on this aspect of WP:SHIPNAME at WikiProject Ships yesterday. Perhaps you would bring you thoughts there, or in a new thread? - Davidships (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support (move to Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06) per Llammakey, Parsecboy) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why name it per hull number, when launch or ownership year is so explanatory. Broichmore (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just expanding on their initial move suggestion. Llammakey (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2024 (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.
 * Oppose per Davidships. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2024

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

– 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.
 * HMS Marlborough (F233) → Chilean frigate Almirante Condell (FF-06)
 * HMS Norfolk (F230) → Chilean frigate Almirante Cochrane (FF-05)
 * HMS Grafton (F80) → Chilean frigate Almirante Lynch (FF-07)

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)
 * Can you amend your proposal to remove the italics in the Chilean names? The italics are not needed. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, can you amend your proposal to eliminate the hull number after Admiral Cochrane. The ship does not need disambiguation as it is the only ship named "Chilean frigate Admiral Cochrane". Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted previously the policy-based arguments for these three proposed moves do have substance, which is, I thnk, basically saying that when a warship is commissoned into a different navy, it is moved to its new name, as in these three cases. And later on, when the ship has gone out of service, the article naming may be reconsidered in the light of broader policy considerations/guidance. I can see that that may work for almost all naval transferd. But I am concerned that a more flexible approach may be needed for merchant ships (though that is not for discussion here). - Davidships (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (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.
 * Oppose. Already discussed only a month ago. Clear common names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment What has changed in terms of policy or evidence, since this was rejected about a month ago? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)