Talk:USS Saginaw (LST-1188)

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 / North America / United States

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 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Namesake: Saginaw River and/or Saginaw, Michigan?[edit]

Dual Freq said,

"req cite for city as namesake since DANFS says the river is the namesake. And yes I noticed some of the other ships in the class are named for cities."

Well, http://www.usssaginaw.org/History.html says,

"Named after the county seat of Saginaw County, Michigan, she is the second U.S. Naval Ship to bear the name."

LSTs were all named for counties (or Louisiana parishes) ... except for some of the Newport class. I haven't checked, but I wonder if those were all named after cities which have the same name as their counties. As for DANFS, I wonder if the guy who did this article simply copied the derivation from the first Saginaw, without checking whether it was the same or was taken from a different thing of the same name.
—WWoods (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually DANFS is pretty reliable about ship namesakes. It seems reasonable that the ship would be named after the city, I think the sponsor is the wife of a former Saginaw mayor. I've been doing some of the infoboxes for these Newport LSTs and a number of the DANFS articles refer to the city. Racine says "a city in Wisconsin", but there is a Racine County, Wisconsin. Same with Peoria, DANFS says "a city in Illinois" but there is a Peoria County, Illinois. I skimmed the rest of the city names and they all have counties with the same names. ie. Fresno County, California, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, Sumter County, South Carolina. I think you raise a good point about the county names, but I'm not sure how it should be handled. I see that history page sources a 1990 change of command booklet, which I would think is a reliable source too. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all the others are named for cities, I think we can reasonably conclude that this one is too. I suggest saying "named for Saginaw, Michigan" in the intro, citing the ship's website, with another footnote saying that DANFS has a different idea.

DANFS is generally reliable, but it's not infallible. I recently did USS Carter Hall (LSD-3). DANFS says "Carter Hall, a Virginia estate, was the home of a colonial governor of the state." Turns out it was built in the 1790s, by the great-grandson of a colonial governor, Robert Carter I.

—WWoods (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking DANFS again, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s2/saginawlst-1188.htm , a stub about the same ship, says,

"Saginaw (LST-1188) (q.v.) was named after a county and city in central Michigan."

Checking further,

Newport-iii: "A city and county in Rhode Island".
Manitowoc-ii: "A city and county in eastern Wisconsin".
Sumter-iii: "[Thomas Sumter] is commemorated by a city and a county of South Carolina, as well as by the historic fort ...".

Sumter (LST-1181) (same ship): "... was named after a city and county in South Carolina."

No article on Fresno Fresno (LST-1182): "... was named for a city and county in California."
Peoria-iv: "A city in Illinois."
Frederick (LST-1184): "... was named after a city and county in Maryland."
Schenectady: "A county and city in New York."

Schenectady (LST-1185): "... was named after a county and city in New York."

Cayuga (LST-1186): "... was named after a county in New York."
Tuscaloosa-ii: "A city in the state of Alabama."

Tuscaloosa (LST-1187) "... was named after a county and city in Alabama."

San Bernardino-ii: "A city in California."

San Bernardino (LST-1189): "... was named after a county and city in California."

Boulder: "Boulder (LST-1190) was named after a county and city in Colorado."
Racine-ii: "A city in Wisconsin."

I think we can reasonably conclude that they're all named for both counties & cities.

—WWoods (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why there are two DANFS articles for this ship and others in the class. http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s2/saginaw-ii.htm and http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/s2/saginawlst-1188.htm . I don't remember ever seeing two about the same ship before I started looking at these LST's. I agree that the theme is seems to be counties especially since the last 7 end with "county". --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not merged with HMAS Kanimbla (L 51)?[edit]

It's the exact same ship, just with another name, so what's the deal with having two separate articles? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because one is the US Navy ship, and the other is the Australian Navy ship. When the Kanimbla was delivered to Australia, it was significantly remodeled. The derrick arms were removed, bow doors welded shut, the bow expanded into a landing pad, the superstructure extended back to the stacks, and the well-deck turned into machine shops. Looking at the pictures I have received from our friends down under, it is not the same ship I served on. While parts are familiar, she's changed so very much... bbroerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.10.72 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles are split quite well - to merge it into one will not serve the reader. The other half of the story is only one click away. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]