Talk:Romanian minehunter Sublocotenent Ion Ghiculescu

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

HMS Blyth

I was disappointed that someone had deleted the "HMS Blyth" page with a new name (four days old according to the sources), but could not restore it. However, I edited (remove repetitions, add a few more properly referenced data points) to maintain the history of a Royal Navy ship.

I deleted nothing. The new Romanian connection has not changed. But I would respectfully point out that Wikipedia is factual and not a social media news outlet, nor a political newsletter.

I am more than happy to discuss, debate, in a civilized, friendly manner, and employ critical thinking in a totally unprejudiced manner, any future edits to the page, now under the very recent name of "Romanian minehunter Sublocotenent Ion Ghiculescu".

Thank you. Canucksailor (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The HMS Blyth page wasn't deleted, it is a redirect now. And the name of this page is the current name of the ship, everything is factual. Alin2808 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I was disappointed. You say "redirected" -- in fact a deletion and new page -- to the current name of the ship; yes, you have done that and I could not undo it. However, HMS Blythe served honourably as a Royal Navy ship for two decades before being sold by the DESA to Romania as "equipment no longer needed by UK Armed Forces." Under her new name Sublocotenent Ion Ghiculescu, she is planned to arrive in Romania at the end of this year -- three months in the future from now -- at which point, and under her new name, she will deserve a Wikipedia page to herself.

Hence my preference would have been to keep a "HMS Blyth" Wikipedia page recording her Royal Navy service and ending with her sale to Romania, and a further "Sublocotenent Ion Ghiculescu" Wikipedia page starting with her purchase from the UK's DESA and recording her history from now onwards.

As a Wikipedia editor and marine historian, I believe that this would be intellectually honest, historically accurate, and meet Wikipedia's mission and purpose. Canucksailor (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Under her new name Sublocotenent Ion Ghiculescu ... she will deserve a Wikipedia page to herself"

All Wikipedia pages about ships that were renamed kept the most recent name and were not split in different articles. See for example: EML Admiral Cowan, Yugoslav monitor Sava, Bulgarian frigate Drazki (these are just some random examples I remembered). So, why would HMS Blyth be any different? Alin2808 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]