Talk:Ceremonial ship launching

Polishing up this article

This article has a lot of good information, but not very much in the way of references. I've found a bunch of good sources in books and online, and I'd like to start polishing up the article. That will include adding new material from the newly-found sources, and maybe also removing some of the existing unreferenced material (some sections are pretty verbose, IMHO). One thing I want to do is to archive all the over-two-years-old material on this talk page. If there are any comments or objections to this proposed course of action, please post them here. Lou Sander (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Here, in no particular order, are some of the sources I've found. Some have a lot of information, some have only a little:

Feel free to use them in improving the article, and feel free to add sources of your own. Lou Sander (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

The technical material about launching methods is not really connected to the subject of this article, which is "ceremonial." If there's no objection, I'm going to find a better place for it, and move it there. Maybe it would be the article on Shipbuilding. Lou Sander (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The article mixes two separate things and alludes to a third. While titled "Ceremonial ship launching" it is weak on ceremonies through time and across cultures and heavy on the mechanics of getting a hull into the water. The two have not always even been at the same time. In some times and places ships were afloat some time before the ceremony. Then it points to ship naming conventions in "See also" and that is associated, but certainly not absolutely connected. That, in naval terms, is usually a government policy. It certainly is in the U.S. That policy guides a name that is perhaps chosen years before the ceremony that confers the name on a hull. I would say a division needs to take place to give good coverage of each subject and also address perhaps widely separate interests of readers and editors. Many readers will have a social interest in the ceremony and little in the engineering and mechanics. Others will have a reverse interest and not care a bit about such things as sponsors and bottle breaking or blood sacrifices. Palmeira (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ceremonial ship launching

Regarding this. Of course, the content is sourced. However, the reference is rather weak, using language which implies a lot of uncertainty, for example "appears to show spectators getting sprayed as the ship lurched into Lake Michigan." and "but one other person reportedly suffered a broken leg." As such, although the incident is verifiable and true, I do not think it is significant or even worth of mention, per WP:NOTNEWS. As we see, the sources didn't cover the incident because it happened (i.e. they didn't deem it significant) - they instead covered the video becoming viral one whole year after the event.

It is not to say that this kind of incident doesn't happen, just that it is nothing worthy of mention - to make a comparison with another method of transportation, planes occasionally collide with each other on the ground (ex. [1] [2]). Of course, it is not routine or something one would expect to happen on every (or even, any) flight, but even the most serious incidents ([3]) rarely get more than the typical WP:109PAPERS coverage and get forgotten - it is significant that the last of these, despite causing a fire, barely gets a passing mention - and this is counting it actually got investigated by the Canadian TSB, making it much more serious than the other ones. Given that this incident didn't even get that far and seems rather minor (especially so when compared with the other reported incidents, where the ships did more than just "cause a wave where 1 person reportedly had a broken leg"), I do not see why we should mention it - even with a source. Sorry for the wall of text, there was a lot to be said 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article conflates ceremony with mechanics. The title indicates it is about the ceremonial aspects while much of the body focuses on the mechanics and even engineering. Both warrant an article and they are not always directly associated in history across cultures. Even in cultures and nations long associating specific ceremonies with the act of sending a hull into the water. During World War II the "ship factory" yards, sometimes launching multiple hulls a day, began dispensing with ceremony for practical and even security reasons. Gatherings of dignitaries, sponsors, publicity, speeches and entertainment vanished for most hulls at such yards, though for publicity and even war bond purposes some ship launches were highly celebrated. Meanwhile the engineering of final hull construction and getting it afloat went apace and even saw innovations.

The ceremonies, from ancient blood sacrifices to alcoholic beverage bottle breaking, itself suspended in the U.S. during prohibition, vary widely over history and culture and indeed warrant coverage. So does the subject of the process itself, which shows much the same variance.

In my view, as currently composed, the article warrants the Template:Unfocused tag as whether the focus is on the ceremonial aspect or the engineering/mechanical aspect is very unclear. What is it about? The "ceremonial" of the title or the mechanics involved? They are not the same, they may not be subjects of common interest in reader groups (one is "social" and one is "engineering" in focus) and each topic could support a full article. Palmeira (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split. The material under Methods has nothing to do with ceremony. It should be removed from this article. I don't know where it belongs. Just not here. Ditto the material on Incidents. I no longer have the time to fix this stuff, but it definitely needs to be done. Lou Sander (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)