Talk:USNS Stalwart

History

I'd like to see more of the history of the Stalwart in this article. For instance, it used to be USS Stalwart. How about some of the accomplishments, like the 3.1 metric tons of cocaine we helped the USS John A. Moore (FFG-19) seize and the approx. 150 refugees we saved in 2000. If only someone could find some sources with this information. I can't find anything, but I was there and know it happened. Also, their was a different USS Stalwart many years before this one. So, I believe that page shouldn't be redirected here. It should be a disambiguation page leading to an article about that Stalwart and another article for this one. Also, what is the Stalwart currently called? Is it still USNS or MV Stalwart or what? --JAYMEDINC 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, a subject matter expert like yourself would take the initiative to make the changes rather than request the changes be done by someone else who doesn't have similar experience. The only problem you will run into is citations. Even though you may have helped carry the drugs off the intercepted boats, you still need a Navy press release or something else to reference. It is also good to work from public released info since sometimes you may know more than what you are allowed to tell. As for the USS Stalwart, here are some links you can to use DANFS when you create the article. USS Stalwart AMC-105 USS Stalwart MSO-493 Oddly, NVR lists most of the MSO type ships except MSO-493. SUNY Maritime College owns the ex-USNS Stalwart, but their website only calls it "The Stalwart" in the few spots I could find. --Dual Freq 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

i go to school at maritime and we renamed it the suny maritime i am going to get a current pic208.251.185.178 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I didn't change anything is because I have no citations and I was hoping someone else does. Thank you for the other USS Stalwart websites. I did see the photo caption referring to it as USTS Stalwart after I asked the question. --JAYMEDINC 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just spent the whole night learning about my old ship's preceding Stalwarts while making a disambig page. Australia and the UK had Stalwarts too. All these ships should be easier to find now, as I think I have created a good base to start from. --JAYMEDINC 05:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Navsource and NVR it seems like AGOS-1 was never commissioned as USS Stalwart. It seems like Stalwart entered service as USNS Stalwart April 12, 1984. The AGOS-1 [1] from Navsource even shows the blue and gold stripes on the stacks that I always associate with USNS ships. No SPS-49 in the image so I assume it was taken prior to the conversion in the early 1990s. Was USNS Stalwart (T-AGOS-1) ever commissioned USS Stalwart (AGOS-1)? --Dual Freq 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is only from memory, but I am almost positive that she was USS Stalwart when it was an anti-sub ship and the SPS-49 was added in the late 90s. I also know that the correct typing is T-AGOS 1 vice T-AGOS-1. As explained to me, if it is the first ship of it's class, the "-" isn't there. Not sure if that is the true reason, but I do know we never used the "-" when writing or typing it.

DOD images has some images you may like. Type Stalwart into the search box and you'll get 30 images, most are of the USNS Stalwart. Type T-AGOS-1 and you get 8 other ones taken after the air search conversion. The sign at the launching ceremony reads USNS Stalwart and it says U. S. Naval Ship Stalwart on the hull. I'll probably upload a before conversion and after conversion image later. --Dual Freq 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great find! Definate proof that she was never USS Stalwart. And it also appears that it may have never been (AGOS 1). At least I got one thing right. It shows (T-AGOS 1) typed without the "-". The sea stories I heard about it previously being USS were fiction. Nothing unusual about a sea story that isn't true. They must've just had their facts mixed up, thinking the previous minesweeper Stalwarts were this one.

Found an article supporting my earlier statement about the lives saved. Don't know exactly what to do with it, so I am linking it here for now. [2] --JAYMEDINC 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

T-AGOS Project Office

I would like to find some info on the T-AGOS Project Office out of NAB Little Creek, Virginia. They were in charge of all the T-AGOS vessels when I was on the USNS Stalwart in 2000-2001. I can't find anything on them telling me if they still exist. I would be interested in having them mentioned appropriately here. --JAYMEDINC 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the only one that has this page on their watchlist, so you may not get any other answers here. I'm not sure where else to ask this question, maybe Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Maritime_warfare_task_force, but this is a pretty specific question that they may not be able to help with. I have no special knowledge on the project, but after a Google search the best I can do is show what I believe may be the current program office: Special Mission Program USNS Invincible (T-AGM-24) is part of that program as are current T-AGOS ships. --Dual Freq 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That description sounds just like the old T-AGOS Project Office. They must've changed the name of it. Thanks again --JAYMEDINC 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hull number

While sometimes the Navy doesn't use dashes in the hull numbers, it is the convention at Wikipedia to do so. We also predisambiguate all ships by using their hull number in the article name. Thanks. Jinian 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I served on USNS Stalwart from 1995 through 1997, as part of MSC TAGOS Project Office, What do you want to know? usnbandit@sio.midco.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.222.249.85 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

npov

I just removed a large chunk of the article because it was biased and the writers put their own suggestions for the future. If you want to add some of it back in don't say what should/should not be done with the boat Sean0987 (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Sean0987

It's still quite biased in it's present form... possibly the cleanest approach that preserves the discussion of it's present condition is simply to create a new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelja (talk • contribs) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 not moved Aervanath (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

• USNS Stalwart (T-AGOS-1) → SUNY Maritime (ship))— This former Navy ship was given to SUNY Maritime College and had a name change. That is why I have requested we change the name of the article. SUNY Maritime is already a redirect page. Many other T-AGOS vessels need to have a name change for the same reason, if this one goes through. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support This former Navy ship was given to SUNY Maritime College and had a name change. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Split put new non-USN career into new article. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Definitely oppose splitting out the ship's history as a SUNY Maritime vessel; it's the same subject under a different name, and the new article would likely not be notable enough to survive an AfD as a stand-alone article. Also oppose renaming the article to SUNY Maritime (ship) unless it can be demonstrated that SUNY Maritime is the most common name for the ship, taking into account its history and all the government documents that presumably refer to the ship under its former name. Per WP:NCCN the article should be named according to the most common name, rather than the official name. The name change can be noted in the article without changing the article title. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose split or rename. Per the naming conventions, the article should remanin at the most common name. Considering that the majority of the hull's life has been under the Stalwart name, the article should stay at this title. Per Baileypalblue, the change of ownership could easily be reflected in the article... I'll have a go at it when I finish work in a few hours. The new name can easily be created as a redirect to this article. As for splitting, I think the only time this should happen is when combining both sections of a hull's history in a single article becomes problematic because of total article size. -- saberwyn 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had a crack at rewriting the article to encompass both names. Anyone looking to further improve the article should look at installing some inline citations, and should keep an eye on the section on the college... the previous version read like somebody making an unsupported whinge. I also removed some unnecessary infobox fields, standardised the date formatting, and removed the "see also" section, as most of the links were already in the text of the article, or did not appear to have a significant connection to the ship. -- saberwyn 07:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There just isn't enough history under the new name (and doesn't seem like there's likely to be).
  —WWoods (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Basically what Wwoods said. The current condition of this vessel makes it hardly seaworthy or notable to warrant a name change or an article split. --Brad (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose rename or split, per Saberwyn, WWoods. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've converted SUNY Maritime into a disambiguation page that links to both the school and the ship. I also created the name proposed above into a redirect to the current article. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - basically per Wwoods. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (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.