Talk:ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser

Rename

This article should be renamed to reflect the type of the vessel. There have been other Russian ships named Vladivostok. Tupsumato (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Russian amphibious assault ship Vladivostok → Vladivostok (LHD) – I propose to move this article's title to Vladivostok (LHD), as the origin of Sevastopol amphibious assault ship is France and the ship did not serve in the Russian navy. Also, the ship is considered to be a Landing helicopter dock (LHD) type. Bluewavedragon (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:Ships, the ship name should be Egyptian ship Vladivostok or Egyptian amphibious assault ship Vladivostok. LHD is an American classification only. All ships not belonging to the US Navy, or at least built by the US Navy, should not be classified by their system. So no, don't agree with the move. Llammakey (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The LHD classification is not only used by the American navy but also used by the Australian navy as the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock. Also, LHD used to abbreviate the term of amphibious assault ship. Bluewavedragon (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Australians use the same classification system as the US, the Egyptians/French do not. Also, you don't abbreviate in titles, so at the very very least, it should be Egyptian landing helicopter dock Vladivostok. Llammakey (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose prove that LHD is a French and/or Russian designation; and why we should use ambigous disambiguation, since LHD is not a ship topic -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the DCNS website (prime contractor) the Mistral-class is a BPC (projection and command ships) also, designate the Mistral-class with LHD as well as many other sources. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Bluewavedragon (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The DCNS website does not seem to use LHD. US English websites (ie. uses "defense") do not show that the French or Russians use the term LHD, which is a US Navy term, and the French were out of NATO for many years, developing their own terminology, while Russia has never been part of NATO. BPC is not spelled the same as LHD, it uses three other letters. That still doesn't make it an appropriate disambiguator, since LHD is ambiguous. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is highly unlikely the ship will retain that name when in Egyptian service. So should wait with the move until the new name has been announced. I don't see the benefit in moving the article knowing it will have to be moved again in the near future. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2015 (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.

Requested move 19 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser". - AHMED XIV (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The previous discussion for moving the page was ended by refusing the request with a decision to wait until the new name was announced. Well, now that the name has been announced, (Vladivostok --> Gamal Abdel Nasser / Sevastopol --> Anwar al-Sadat), we should open another discussion. Here is what I have:

First, three sources referring to the new names:

1- meretmarine.com - Link - 18 April 2016

2- bmpd.livejournal.com Link - 11 April 2016 (Excluded)

3- ouest-france.fr / lignesdesdefense.blogs Link - 9 April 2016 (Excluded)

Second, a photo of the official emblem of the "Gamal Abdel Nasser" ship - Link, the name is "E.N.S Gamal Abdel Nasser 1010", where "E.N.S" is the abbreviation of "Egyptian Navy Ship" and the number "1010" is of course the hull number.

Conclusion: Vladivostok --> Gamal Abdel Nasser / Sevastopol --> Anwar al-Sadat

I invite you to join the discussion in order to reach a final decision for the page title. (Tupsumato, DrKay , Bluewavedragon, Llammakey, ÄDA - DÄP VA, 70.51.202.113, Steelpillow, and of course anyone is free to join)

Note: It will be better if we also discuss the other ship "Sevastopol" here and then transfer the discussion there after making a decision for the two ships. - AHMED XIV (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the meretmarine link would be considered a reliable source. The other two are blogs so I'd love to know where they got their information from. If both those blogs got their information from meretmarine, then essentially you have one source. Now if the names do check out then by all means, change the names. I would suggest something in the along the lines of "Egyptian amphibious assault ship ..." since the Egyptian Navy does not use NATO or US naval terminology. Llammakey (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment While Mer et Marine is probably right, I think we should give it a few more days just in case they themselves have been misled: they only posted the news item today. If say the Government were to publish an announcement, that would certainly be enough. The other two links are blog posts and are not reliable. I'd prefer article titles along the lines of "E.N.S. Gamal Abdel Nasser" - we don't want anything long-winded. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the two blog links have been excluded since they are not reliable sources. As for Mer et Marine, the information it provides would be considered a reliable source and also there is the ship emblem which evidently proves that Mer et Marine is right. In fact, the ship emblem alone is enough as a source. I agree with Steelpillow, "Egyptian amphibious assault ship Gamal Abdel Nasser" is too long. I'd prefer "E.N.S Gamal Abdel Nasser 1010" and "E.N.S Anwar al-Sadat 1020". - AHMED XIV (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The first source (Mer et marine), is considered a reliable source while the other two sources are not. Also, if you could provide another reliable source, will be preferred before changing the name of the article. Finally, abbreviations must not used in titles as E.N.S and instead I suggest "Egyptian Ship Gamal Abdel Nasser (1010)". Bluewavedragon (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No E.N.S. as no abbreviations in titles. Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser would be acceptable if length is an issue. Per the discussion on US hull numbers over at WP:Ships, hull numbers are not acceptable in article titles where the article does not need to be disambiguated. Llammakey (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So abbreviations and hull numbers are not accepted and we need something not too long. "Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser" sounds great. - AHMED XIV (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2016 (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.

Name of the ship

Which name did it had before. The Infobox sais Sevastopol, but the redirection Russian amphibious assault ship Sevastopol ist a redirect to Egyptian ship Anwar El Sadat. HenSti (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Llammakey (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser. There is a general consensus that the prefix ENS is used in sources, and also (per Andrewa comment at the bottom), it seems right that we don't need the disambiguator L1010.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Egyptian ship Gamal Abdel Nasser → ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser (L1010) – I request moving the page title to " ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser (L1010) " - per policy, where A typical military ship article name should have the following form: <prefix> <italicized name> <(hull or pennant number or disambiguation)>. AHMED XIV (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Prefix

The "ENS" prefix is not something I've made up, it's the official and standard prefix for all the Egyptian Navy vessels and can be clearly seen on the ships' badges. Here are some images for Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El Sadat Mistral carrier badges and also an image for Tahya Misr Fremm Frigate badge.
Image 1: Anwar El Sadat badge
Image 2: Gamal Abdel Nasser badge
Image 3: Tahya Misr badge

Italicized name

Of course, the names will be Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El Sadat for both ships. Ship names are always italicized.

Hull or pennant number

For an article about a modern-day ship, a ship's hull number should be included in the title if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known. Llammakey, DrKay, BilCat, Steelpillow

If you read the note at the end of the entry of for disambiguation, you would see that it is wrong to disambiguate per WP:PRECISE. The hull number is a disambiguator, not part of the ship's name. See USS Michael Monsoor for a recent US ship that lost its hull number in the article title because it is the only ship of that name. Llammakey (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the hull number isn't actually a big deal, it's already written in the article. Now about the ENS prefix, DrKay and BilCat should say something, they're the ones who opposed it at first. AHMED XIV (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ENS prefix

Regarding the ENS claim, the problem is Verifiability: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The badges themselves aren't reliable sources, as they are just images, and we don't know where they came from, or whether they are official or not. What is needed are reliable, published sources that clearly state that the prefix is official in the Egyptian Navy. - BilCat (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

My only actions here have been administrative. I have no personal opinion on the merits or otherwise of the suggested titles. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BilCat, the images are for the badges on the surface of the ships not some Photoshoped ones, you can see the Fremm Frigate Badge is from NavyRecognition. Anyway you can have a look at these sources:
ENS Al Zaffer Jianghu I class destroyer
ENS Toushka (FFG 906)
ENS Tahya Misr - FREMM multi-mission frigate
ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser
ENS Anwar El Sadat (Written on the the ship's hull) - AHMED XIV (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for a reply from BilCat in order to reach a consensus. - AHMED XIV (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it is used in some sources, but that doesn't prove it's official usage. To be honest, you need more editors looking at this, and that's probably best found at WT:MILHIST, since this issue involves more than just one article, and it affects a MILHIST guideline. - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've provided a source from the " Official Website of the United States Navy " and you're saying it's NOT OFFICIAL, with all due respect but this is your problem. Wikipedia doesn't work by the beliefs or experiences of its editors so that you can decide what's official and what isn't. DrKay and Llammakey under your administrator role, I ask you to look into this. According to Verifiability, I now have the right to edit the title as I've provided reliable and official sources to this information and the opposing side is neglecting them and is only giving personal opinions. I would also like to invite Steelpillow and Buckshot06 to this talk. - AHMED XIV (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the US Navy was the Egyptian Navy's official website. My apologies. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a neutral note at WT:MILHIST#ENS as Egyptian Navy ship name prefix to get more input. You might want to watch that section in case comments are made there. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if others join the talk. - AHMED XIV (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since Jane's says so, and it is commonly used, I don't why the prefix should not be used here. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick search shows that the ENS prefix is widely used in the English-speaking world in this context. Here's another example from the Royal Navy. I don't know what the official (Arabic?) version is but, given that it's used by Janes and also painted in the Roman alphabet on at least one of their ships, as linked to above, then I think that we now have sufficient verification for its use here to be justified by WP:COMMONNAME. There is an editorial danger in that some other countries, such as Estonia, also appear to use ENS, but that is nothing we can't handle. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jane's is, with all due respect, unreliable (eg "RFS"). Ditto globalsecurity.org. We do not know whether prefixes are used in Arabic, and risk upgrading a photoop ENS on one new, ultra high visibility vessel into a standard practice. More Egyptian Navy official sources are required; anyone looked at their Arabic-language website? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the Egyptian Navy doesn't have a an official website for itself, all official news and publications for the Armed Forces are released by the MoD through its official website and by the Egyptian Army official Spokesman through official twitter, Facebook and Youtube pages, all of which are in Arabic only. The Egyptian Navy uses two different prefixes for English and Arabic, these two prefixes are different in both Letters and meanings. In Arabic, the prefix used before the ship's name is " سجم " and as an Egyptian, it means " Arab Republic of Egypt Ship ". For example, here is a press release from the official Spokesman Facebook Page about Egypt receiving the P-32 Molniya-class missile craft named " ENS Ahmed Fadel ". You can clearly see the prefix " سجم " before the vessel's name " أحمد فاضل ". In English, the prefix used before the ship's name is " ENS " which means " Egyptian Navy Ship ". Because all official press releases are in Arabic you will never see the prefix " ENS ", it will only be found in news and publications by English websites, like the one released here by the Official Website of the United States Navy where it stated : " Rigid-hull inflatable boats (RHIB) with Sailors from the guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely (DDG 107) approach the Egyptian navy ship ENS Toushka (FFG 906) during a passing exercise. ". That's why I've added a sum of reliable English sources from the beginning, including images for the prefix " ENS " written on the hull of the Gamal Abdel Nasser carrier and again I emphasize On The Hull, which is a complete verification for the usage of such Prefix. - AHMED XIV (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's of no relevance what - if any - prefix the Egyptian navy is using internally as that would be in Arabic. The question is what prefix is used with regard to Egyptian naval ships in English. E.g. the German Navy does not use ship prefixes internally , however FGS is used in NATO comms. The Israeli Navy uses Hebrew: אח"י internally, but INS in English (as does the Indian Navy). And while NATO uses ENS for Estonian vessels, too, WP uses EML instead. So there is precedence either way, using the native TLA (EML instead of ENS), and translating the acronym (INS for both the Israeli and Indian navies). Personally, I think the consistent use in relevant publications and by relevant organisations should be enough to establish "common use". Using foreign language sources - especially from languages not using the Latin script - is not really helpful. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Navies who actually maintain a well-known prefix, such as the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy, have a bad record of creating analogous prefixes because they believe something must be inserted. The poster-boy case is "RFS" for Russian Federation Ship used by Jane's after the USN created it. The Russians do not use it. Right now, from official Egyptian sources, we have one photo - one photo - of one ship. This is not enough to change the entire wikipedia precedent for naming Egyptian ships. My strong view is to retain the existing system until more official evidence is required. Is there not one single Egyptian official document in English that uses ENS? Then I'm afraid I cannot support rolling this out across all Egyptian Navy ships, and this one, in my view, can stay at the name it is until further official evidence appears. Otherwise we are in danger of creating a wiki-ism. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got plenty of documents in English from different sources referring to e.g. Hans Majestets Skip Gotland as HMS Gotland. Following your logic, for all articles on Royal Swedish Navy ships (and Norwegian, too) the prefix should be changed to HMS then? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained that all official releases by the Armed Forces are in Arabic, that is why we are looking for an official alternative. In this case, the badge of the ships which contains the prefix in every single one of them is totally enough. Q: Who created the badge ? N: The Navy .. Q: Who accepted the ENS prefix on the badge ? N: The Navy. So why are we asking for a written source when it's so obvious. Also here is an image for an Egyptian Navy Type 701E transport ship where you can see the English Prefix on the left and the Arabic one on the right. Note: That's not me in the image. - AHMED XIV (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

ADA-DAP, no, I am talking about this case of the Egyptian Navy now; I am not trying to prescribe a unclear application of WP rules, guided by commonsense, where there are much more sources, and importantly WP:CONSENSUS. AHMED XIV, read the top statement by BilCat: "Regarding the ENS claim, the problem is Verifiability: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The badges themselves aren't reliable sources, as they are just images, and we don't know where they came from, or whether they are official or not. What is needed are reliable, published sources that clearly state that the prefix is official in the Egyptian Navy." In the absence of such sources WE WILL NOT MEET WP:V!!! This *pillar* of WP's rules outweighs virtually everything else. Come back when you have a reliable, published source. Otherwise we are not meeting WP:V. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

From this discussion, it begins to look to me as if Wikipedia may have no consistent practice at the moment: we don't generally seem to give Russian Naval ships a pseudo-prefix, e.g. Russian battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov, but we do seem to give Swedish ships one, e.g. HSwMS Gotland (1995). If that is the case then it might be worth widening this discussion to create that wider consensus. Or, have I missed something? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean that article title naming rules are being placed on some articles and aren't on others ? I don't know if the Russian Navy has a prefix for its ships but per policy, For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the article name. For ships of navies that don't have standard ship prefixes, use the nationality in the article name. - AHMED XIV (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact Verifiability has been proven, the prefix " ENS " is written on the hull of the Gamal Abdel Nasser carrier, which is a reliable, published source that clearly states that the prefix is official. As for changing the entire wikipedia precedent for naming Egyptian ships, we can look into that later. Right now, we are dealing with Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El Sadat ships and most of the editors here have agreed on the prefix. - AHMED XIV (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow, the guideline you have missed is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes; AHMED XIV, please do us all a favour and review what WP:SOURCE says about what a reliable published source is - not a single photo. In a word, an unambiguous textual statement. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Do Facebook photos meet that standard? No. WP:V, is, again, not met. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, I've added the URLs that instantly direct to the images so it can be easier for you to access. Here are their links:
1) Prefix " ENS " written on the hull of the Gamal Abdel Nasser ship. Link - Presseocean Journal
2) Prefix " ENS " written on the hull of the Anwar El Sadat ship. Link - Meretmarine Journal - AHMED XIV (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're either not reading or not engaging with the definition as copied from WP:SOURCE. Reliable? Maybe the first photo, from a journalistic source, but not the second photo (googleusercontent!!). Third-party? Maybe the first photo, but dubious on the second photo (anyone can photoshop anything on the internet, though I'm not saying anyone's done so here). Published? Maybe the first photo, but not the second. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Maybe the first photo, second fails utterly. I'm trying to make this very clear; is there anything I haven't explained enough? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarifications. This is a close-run debate. I am reminded of a comedy skit once in which somebody wrote a cheque on the side of a cow and presented it to the bank. The claim was that this was a perfectly legal payment and if the bank refused to process it, that was not his problem. As I recall, UK law was later modified to stop this sort of thing. Similarly here we have an issue as to whether painting a name on a ship is in itself a reliable source. Wikipedia does not accept original claims, it requires sources to be independent "third parties", and as such the ship cannot be its own reliable source. Only if the photo is published and endorsed by such a reliable third party can it be used here. AHMED XIV has provided two such links (Buckshot06 appears not to have noticed the source update from Google to a reliable journal). However neither journal uses "ENS" in the accompanying text, so we can say only that they illustrate the first-party claim, they do not endorse it. Based on the same policy, I find the demand for official Navy documents spurious, whatever language they may be written in: they are self-published by the Navy and so cannot be regarded as adequate sources. While standard industry guides such as Janes may occasionally make mistakes, they are generally accepted as reliable sources. Turning to WP:SHIPNAME, the "RFS" prefix used only by some non-Russian organizations is one of the examples given for what not to do here. However the claim here is that ENS is used by the Egyptian Navy. The examples above of usage by the US and UK Navies are not accepted as reliable, as the RFS parallel shows. Janes does explicitly endorse it, but I am unsure whether Janes are assuming an internal Navy designation or a Western (NATO) designation: Wikipedia accepts the one but rejects the other. To me, this is key - we have to assume that Janes are reliable on this particular occasion unless someone produces equally strong evidence to the contrary, but what are Janes meaning to say here? For example, what Prefix to ships' name do they give for Russian Naval vessels? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [Minor clarification added 16:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)]

Thank you Steelpillow for your fruitful explanation. Janes also mentions ENS Anwar El Sadat in this Link. As for official documents, I've mentioned one above ( press release Link) from the Armed Forces official Spokesman Facebook Page, but the problem is that it's written in Arabic using the internal Navy designation " سجم ". So to sum things up, I think we can rely on the journal published photos and on Janes as a textual verification. - AHMED XIV (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser. The primary sources we have for the prefix are relevant and convincing, and perfectly admissable because there is no interpretation. There is no need to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2016 (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.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Badge of ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser LHD.png
• ENS Gamal Abdel Nasser (L1010) Helicopter Carrier.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)