Talk:Spanish ship Juan Carlos I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article name[edit]

I reverted the move to Juan Carlos I (ship) as I'm pretty sure it doesn't follow the naming conventions for such ships. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Naming help for help from someone more familar with the guidelines. I reverted it back here to avoid causing double and triple redirects when it's moved to the correct name, not to cause the editor who moved it this time more problems. I'd appreciate it if he'd discuss this here, rather than trying to move the page again. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

His numeral, is L61... time for the time.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In the English language, ships are called her or it, but never him. The officia Armada site has a model with the label "LHD1". I've also seen pictures of the completed ship with "LHD1", tho I can't recall wehre at the moment. You'll need to find an official or reliable source, not an inconclusive pic of a ship under construction. If it really is L61, it should not be hard to find one. - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2007-2008 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships has the hull number field blank but includes an artist's impression of the ship with LHD1 on her side. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Him numeral is L61.... You can see complete ship (but not finished) here and here in a whole photograph with this number (diferent from previous... and in second link, with a lot of photos of this naval construction) .... The worst blind is the person that dont want see... (sorry for my short english...)-- (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Spanish numerals for anbibious:
Terrebonne Parish-Class (LST); 3 Ships :(L-11, L-12 and L-13)
Paul Revere Class (LPA); 2 Ships: (L-21 and L-22)
Galicia Class (LSD): 1 Ship: (L-31)
Newport Class (LST); 2 ships: (L-41 and L-42)
Galicia Class (LPD); 2 Ships: (L-51 and L-52)
Juan Carlos I Class (LHD); 1 Ship: (L61)
-- (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Without sources, your list proves absolutely nothing. I've done some Google searching, and "L61" appears in a number of older articles, but the newer ones usually use "LHD1". the [[ Navantia] website has only one image, which appears to be computer-generated, and it shows "LHD1" on the side, not "L61". However, I have found no official source at either Navantia or at [], the official Spanish Navy site, which lists, in text, any pennant number at all. Therefore, in the absence of reliable sources, I think it would be best to remove any mention of a pennant number until such time as the Spanish Navy clears up the issue, either in print, or in actual pictures of the real ship. In the meantime, Juan Carlos I (BPE ship) should suffice, although Juan Carlos I (LHD ship) would be OK with me too. - BillCJ (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please... see this photo ... in this, you can see the vessel two days ago (20 february 2008)... the crane have got the Navantia logo, and the shep, have got the numeral L-61 paint in dark gray over light gray
the vessel is in painting process, 17 days for launching-- (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as "Buque" translates as "vessel" of "ship", is not the latter redundant in the article name?! Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's redundant! I moved it there on purpose to see how smart our editors were. :p Or, I felt most readers wouldn't know what "BPE" meant, and added ship for explanatory purposes. Also, Juan Carlos I (ship) has been used, and as a non-admin, I can't move a page over a pre-existing redirect. I just wanted to get it off of the "LHD1" name as quickly as possible, and I was headed to bed at the time. Anyone is welcome to move it somewhere else! - BillCJ (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

- BillCJ (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vol. XXII, issue 4, 2008 of Military technology, page 128 shows pictures of the ship being launched and verifies the whole article. She was launch March the 10th and is expected to be commissioned in December 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Better photograph?[edit]

Does somebody know of a better photograph of the ship that can be posted here? The present image of the US secretary touring the deck of the unfinished ship does not show the vessel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


is spected for 2010 april: article: Por lo que respecta al buque prototipo del LHD español, el Juan Carlos I, comenzó el pasado martes una primera fase de pruebas de mar propias de la empresa.... ...está previsto que el buque sea entregado a la Armada en el mes de abril.

English: About the LHD prototipe Juan Carlos I, started the last thursday her builder´s Shakedown... ... is espected to be comissioned in april

--Takashi kurita (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Feel free to re-request moves to other titles. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61)Juan Carlos I (L61) — or Juan Carlos I (ship) or similar, anything just to remove the bizarre "Spanish ship" from the start of the title (I dare say there's some guideline that says that the current title is the one to use, but the result is plainly ridiculous in this case).--Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support move to Juan Carlos I (ship). When the specific guidelines indicate such a plainly ridiculous name, WP:IGNORE applies. The general guidelines are much more helpful in this case. The name of the ship is the Juan Carlos I so that is the theoretical ideal title, but of course it needs to be disambiguated, and the disambiguating term ship is the obvious choice for that (prefer to L61 because ship is much better recognized than L61). --Born2cycle (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've found the guideline responsible for this (and many more similar cases, apparently), and have raised the possibility of changing it - see WT:NCSHIP#Looks weird.--Kotniski (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as long as WP:NC-SHIPS is in force in its current form which support this article's title, this move request should be suspended if not declined outright. If the convention is changed, then this request should be re-started. Also, pennant numbers are preferable when they are available over the use of "ship". Ship could be used as a redirect (if this request is successful). -MBK004 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines reflect and guide, not dictate, what occurs at the individual article level. Otherwise there could never be change, because if you try to change the guideline it's argued that no articles do that, but if you try to change the article, well, you get this argument above. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we don't have to follow guidelines if they tell us to do something silly. And I don't see why pennant numbers are preferable - surely "(ship)" is far more recognizable to everyone?--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article is named consistently with other articles of the same type, renaming it would remove consistency. As I don't see anything particularly ridiculous about the name, since I do not assume that people know who is Juan Carlos I (which would be needed to see that it is ridiculous, which would mean that most people are from Europe and are royal-watchers or some other restricted population of people who know who Juan Carlos I is). (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand that argument - what has "knowing who Juan Carlos I is" got to do with the fact that this (and other similar) articles are disambiguated in a very idiosyncratic and confusing way?--Kotniski (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, why would this particular ship be very bizarre? The only reason I could come up with is because he is the King of Spain. But for this particular ship article to be bizarre more than other ship articles would mean that you would need to know that he is the King of Spain, which would mean you are addressing a very small audience out of the total number of Wikipedia users. So, I oppose because this is no more bizarre than any other Spanish ship article named this way, since for it to be more bizarre would require assumption that everyone using Wikipedia knows who Juan Carlos I is. (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not claiming this is any more bizarre than the others - all of them are equally bizarre, this happens to be the one I found first and was immediately jolted by the peculiar title. --Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article is named in accordance with the accepted standard for this type of article. As I see it that convention has come about because many warships have formal prefixes in their names, eg USS Something or HMS Somethingelse etc. These prefixes are abbreviations for "United States Ship" and "Her Majesty's Ship"and so on and identify that the subject in question (and thus the article about it) is in fact a warship. Because ships are usually named after something (or someone) else these prefixes identify that the thing being discussed is a ship. For consistancy in Wikipedia it has been agreed that articles for ships of navies that do not use a standardised prefixes shall be named "Country X ship (or aircraft carrier, or whatever) Name. This may look odd to those not familiar with ships and ship articles but it looks entirely natural to those who are familiar with ships. Unless the convention is changed, this article should remain titled as it is. - Nick Thorne talk 08:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Being familiar with ships won't stop it looking odd - for it not to look odd, you have to be familiar with ship articles, and not with any other kind of article, where this style of disambiguation is (quite naturally) never used. I hope the guideline will be changed soon - discussion is under way, so it's fairly moot at this point whether this particlar article is renamed right now.--Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The crucial difference is that USS or HMS is part of the official name of the ship in those Navies.  Dr. Loosmark  14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You are quite correct. However, this misses the point entirely. - Nick Thorne talk 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What point?--Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Juan Carlos I (L61). No need for "Spanish ship" since no other nation has a ship named Juan Carlos I (L61).  Dr. Loosmark  14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Nick Thorne. - BilCat (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So can you answer the objections that have been raised against Nick's arguments?--Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The point of our responses isn't to pursuade you, but to establish consensus, which doesn't need consent from the opposition to be established. Q&A is good to a point, but when every contrary response is cross-examined to the inth degree, as here, it really accomplishes nothing, and often is counter-productive to the cause of the questioners. This AFD is moot anyway, because if its result is different from that of the discussion at the naming convention, the results here will be challenged. It would be better to hold this one off until that is settled one way or another. - BilCat (talk)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus decisions are determined not by counting votes, but by evaluating the quality of the arguments. In the case of RM discussions, that includes showing how one's position is consistent with WP:TITLE, or explaining why it should be an exception. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And who exactly is that pedantry aimed at? I know I wasn't talking about vote counting. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the edit summary where you stated you were replying to me. I wasn't referring to vote counting. - BilCat (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If all you do is state your position and note that you're in agreement with someone whose argument has been objected to, what can be done except just count your vote? You're not giving us anything else to go by. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorsing another voter's statement is not "voting". And when I endorse a statement that someone else has objected to, without comment, I'm saying the objection is worthless! Why continually argue the same point over and over with someone whose mind is already made up? Again, the consensus does not depend on the approval of the objectors, so trying to persuade them is pointless. Don't confuse "Quality of the arguement" with "quantity of the arguing". At some point, nothing new can be said, and we end up arguing the same points over and over again. And that's usually not lost on the closer either. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but are you suggesting we've reached the point of "continually arguing the same point over and over" in this discussion? That's not how I would see it if I was closing this discussion. In particular, I see precious little substance in any opposing argument here.

Any debate is unlikely to change the minds of those participating, but that's not the point. It's for the benefit of anyone who is relatively neutral, including hopefully the closer. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


article states: "For the first time in the Spanish Navy, the ship uses diesel-electric propulsion, simultaneously connecting both diesels and the new technology gas turbine powerplant to a pair of azimuthal pods." - but no where describes what particular Gas Turbine or Diesel engines are installed. The Australian Canberra Class ships - designed by same folks have a single General Electric LM2500 gas turbine and 2 MAN 16V32/40 diesels, - and 2 × Siemens azimuth thrusters, their plant is described as a CODLAG - Combined diesel-electric and Gas Turbine. it is quite possible this ship has the same engines. Wfoj3 (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)