|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ship commissioning article.|
|Ship decommissioning was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 15 September 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ship commissioning. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated Start-class)|
What is commissioning a civilian ship called? The article infers commissioning refers only to military ships. GrahamBould 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Being "placed in service." The word "commissioning" specifically means "an official charge or authority," which civilian ships don't get.
"Commissioning" ("being placed in service") without further specification, might refer to many things different from a ship. For example, in chemical engineering "commissioning" is the project phase that follows the construction of a chemical plant and precedes start-up. It consists of a number of checks, which include instruments, valves, electrical installations, piping and arrangement, pressure testing and cleaning of pipes and equipment. I suggest this acceptation is added to the definition of "commissioning". 22.214.171.124 09:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article deals only with traditions of commissioning in the United States Navy, and as such is biased and incomplete. In order to be a fair article it should deal with significance and customs in other great navies. For example, in the British Royal Navy, and other constitutional monarchies, the commissioning of a ship represents the orders of the reigning monarch to bring the ship to service of the country. Guyfwoodward 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I must agree, this is far too focused on a single nation's navy and its traditions, mentioning in passing yes, possibly even a section, but it should not consist of over two-thirds of the page. Can we have this section reduced, and have the general section expanded as well as new sections on other navies ect? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I must agree with Nyttend, and I must strongly disagree with the above anonymous user. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, nor the total amount of content. If there's a well-informed user who can describe how other navies handle ship commissioning, then they should be including that information. If Guyfwoodward is able to briefly explain British customs for his justification in calling the article "biased," why didn't he add a new section on the Royal Navy to get the ball rolling, rather than complain here about "American bias?"
- If the only editors willing to contribute information to this article are those who are familiar with American naval customs, that's not the fault of those editors, and they certainly shouldn't be accused of having "bias" or thinking that that the rest of the world doesn't matter. Therefore, I feel that Guyfwoodward (in claiming the article is "biased") and the above anonymous user (in calling for the deletion of information) are exerting a bullying prejudice toward Americans. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it generally true that ships too battle damaged to be repaired but have not sunk are decomissioned rather than struck, or was it just the Liberty for political reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)