Talk:Jacklyn (ship)

Name history

The ship was launched in 2004 as SEA CHIEFTAIN. [1] (click on "Ex-Names History"). Rowan Forest (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Vessel Name: STENA FREIGHTER

Flag: DK Last Reported: 2018-11-06 04:53:00

• Vessel Name: STENA FREIGHTER

Flag: DK Last Reported: 2018-11-06 04:53:00

• Vessel Name: JBANA FREIGHTER

Flag: DK Last Reported: 2018-07-06 06:25:00

• Vessel Name: STENA FREIGHTER

Flag: GB Last Reported: 2013-10-11 20:33:00

• Vessel Name: STENA FRE

Flag: GB Last Reported: 2012-08-03 05:25:00

• Vessel Name: STENA FREIGHTER
• Flag: SE

Last Reported: 2011-04-22 09:18:00

• Vessel Name: SEA CHIEFTAIN

Last Reported: 2004-03-01

Those ship registries seem to have quite a number of data glitches in them, and I don't believe should be relied upon. The new source added by Hunster from the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary Historical Society seems to do a better job.

I've now used that source to flesh out a fairly complete History section today.

While the ship does have the names Stena Hispanica, RFA Sea Cheiftain, Stena Seafreighter, Stena Freighter, and, now, LPV, she only ever sailed after completion of the ship in 2004 as Stena Freighter.

Therefore, it seems that all the name change central history can just be mentioned in the History section for the most part. For example, maybe take "Sea Chieftain" out of the lede sentence, since it was only nameed that for a while as the hull got to 50% complete..., and the contract for the British MoD to use the ship obviously fell through on the bankruptcy of the original shipyard in 1999, five years before the ship ever sailed. N2e (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that those listings above seem to be obvious corruptions of the database. Keeping Sea Chieftain to the history section also makes a lot of sense. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the input. I've gone ahead and left Sea Chieftain out of the lede, since it never sailed under that name. All the names are, of course, appropriate for the History section, and I believe all are in there that we have good sources for. N2e (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added all the ship names to the infobox (normal practice for ships - and once it floats its a boat) but reversed the order as its most likely that she will be best known for her current ownership. Still not certain by what name she was known between the cancellation of the RFA contract in 1999 and her use of Stena Seafreighter. Lyndaship (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lyndaship! Question: is it proper to list Stena Hispanica in the infobox, since it was a yard ship at the time, and never floated under that name? I don't know; but it sounds like from your "once it floats its a boat" statement that maybe it isn't.

Yes it is. The three relevant dates usually for ships construction are Laid down, Launched and Completed, sometimes ordered, first steel cut and commissioning are also mentioned. This ship was ordered under the name Stena Hispanica and is in sources under that name. Lyndaship (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! N2e (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How much context on how the ship will be used is appropriate for the lede?

This is a new article, so who knows how everything will settle out. But I felt the existing lede—which includes this bit: "... purchased in 2018 for use as a landing platform ship for its New Glenn launch vehicle booster stages. As of late 2018, the ship is undergoing refit to prepare for its role of landing rockets." — was lacking context for the global reader.

So in order to add to the article lead how the ship would be used, and why this type of moving (underway) ship had been selected, and when the rocket-landing-on-ship thing might first occur, I added this paragraph to the lede:

The first stage boosters of New Glenn are intended to be reusable, and will be recovered downrange in the Atlantic Ocean via LPV while the hydrodynamically-stabilized ship is underway. The stabilization technology is designed to increase the likelihood of successful rocket recovery in rough seas. Blue Origin is planning to make the first orbital launch New Glenn no earlier than 2021.

Huntster Reverted that Bold addition. So let's do a bit of a WP:BRD and Discuss it here. PROPOSAL: Add a second paragraph to the lead that answers the how / why / when question, right in the article summary, at the top of the article.

• SUPPORT--as nom. Rationale: the global reader of this (somewhat unusual ship article) about a marine vessel that is being refit to catch a falling rocket will benefit, right in the lead, from the how / why / when as mentioned above, while also lightly addressing the where question that might be in the readers mind. Per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead would not be too long, as it would be only two paragraphs. N2e (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I removed it because it was a direct copy/paste of what was in the body. If a second paragraph can be added to the lead that directly discusses the ship in a meaningful way, sure. I'm just not sure that it's necessary or needed at this point. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that was all, I wish you had just left the how / why / when summary answers in the lede, and just copyedited it to meet your standards. Most who come to an article don't ever read every bit, so redundancy between lead and some paragraph buried in the body is not really a very big issue. WP:MOS is fine with a bit of redundancy. Or just tagged it for whatever cleanup you think it needed. But you just deleted it completely, and that causes a lot of extra work. N2e (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support -The lede reflects the content in the body of the article, so copying key information (one short paragraph) into the lede is very useful. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

With the original reverter commenting that a second paragraph could be added to the lead to directly discuss the ship in a meaningful way, and strong support for answering additional when/how/why questions in the lead summary from other editors, I've gone ahead and updated the lede to reflect more about the operational plans for the ship. N2e (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So what went wrong? Para 2 of the Lead is now longer than the three lines that it is supposed to be summarising! Davidships (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Article nominated for Did you know ...?

This article has been nominated for the Did you know ...? section of the Wikipedia Main Page. It does seem a somewhat unusual and therefore interesting ship application, so thought others might find it of interest. Others feel free to make the nomination better, add new/better/alternative hook suggestions, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On 18 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blue Origin landing platform ship, which was created only recently. The fact was

... that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on a moving ship?

The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You may subsequently check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000.

User:Huntster and User:Rowan Forest helped get this article into condition where it was a good DYK article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Great work, N2e! I haven't the first clue how DYK works, but hopefully I'll manage to catch it whilst on the main page. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

mid-year 2019 photo update on the refit

A citizen journalist has posted aerial footage of what the Blue LPV looks like as of late June 2019, along with a description.

Funnels are chopped and the deck is flat on the @blueorigin recovery ship being modified in Pensacola! The loading ramp on the stern has also been shortened flush with the deck.

Here is the link.

And here are two comparison photos of the ship, both in the refit yard at Pensacola: November 2018 / June 2019. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

15 Dec 2019 photos at the refit dock in Pennsacola

This URL has four photos of the ship, riding high in the water, taken this week. Not a lot of visible progress since the mid-year photos. N2e (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move buidhe 05:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Blue Origin landing platform ship → Blue Origin Landing Platform Vessel – It is called LPV (acronym of "Landing Platform Vessel). Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a general class of ships. Blue Origin Landing Platform Vessel? --mfb (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am changing the nomination. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Oppose Blue Origin Landing Platform Vessel, simply 'cause I've not been able to find a source where the company refers to it by that name, and therefore we don't have any source for it being a proper noun. I believe I named this redirect, and later article, when all we had was the description of what it was, a landing platform ship. Now that Blue has registered it as LPV, it seems to make sense to change the name of the article; but it should probably be either Blue Origin LPV (per a source citation currently in the article) or, if we think WP:COMMONNAME might justify our synthesis of the acronym expansion for easier and more understandable use, then Blue Origin landing platform vessel, per MOS:TITLE and it being somewhat better than "... landing platform ship"

COMMENT: WP:TITLE is not 100% determinative here on the capitalization of the "L... P... V...". Why? Because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) says to "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." I haven't seen anywhere where Blue refers to the ship by those three words, fully spelled out: "Landing Platform Vessel". I've only seen Blue and ship registration sources refer to it by its initials, "LPV". So if that is the case, perhaps we would not have justification for capitalizing the three words, since we have no verifiable source for that locution being a proper noun, and are only inferring it from the initials as a WP:COMMONNAME to the expanded acronym. N2e (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim in the article that LPV stands for Landing Platform Vessel is unsourced there, and even marked citation needed. It's probably true but it's original research and should be removed from the article. A move to Blue Origin LPV is probably harmless but even that hasn't been justified. A redirect from that name would be quite sufficient. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The abbreviation in the article is unsourced, but, so is the original name itself. Though we don't know which one it should be, until we get a source it would be better to not move it and keep it in its current name. — Yours, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Consensus is emerged to use WP:COMMONNAME. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Blue Origin landing platform ship → Landing Platform Vessel – LPV is the current name of the ship. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Relist note: Original proposal was to Blue Origin LPV, which was changed to Landing Platform Vessel at 09:54 on 20 June 2020 (UTC). Therefore, this request should stay open at least until 09:54 on 27 June 2020 (UTC), a period of seven days. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Also note that members of associated WikiProjects have been notified of this request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE — I'd suggest leaving it named what it is now——simply cause it's both descriptive and closest to the common way the public is thinking about the thing, from (to date) the very few articles that have been written about it. I think we can wait until somethings happening with New Glenn attempted landings on this ship, and guarantee it'll have lots of media coverage then, and see what the common name is then. Will Blue rename it once built/commissioned for its new purpose with one of its colorful names? If not, and if Blue internal folk call it some three letter acronym, will the common name be that acronym? I personally doubt the latter. So just leaving it to the current most correct description makes sense. N2e (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Redirects will do the above-mentioned job. Reliable sources use multiple names to refer the ship. Therefore, we should use official name of the vehicle, as it is WP:CONCISE. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Thanks to NASASpaceFlight.com, I can see the usage of the full form of LPV. Therefore, changing the RM. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I was minded to oppose as not yet, lets see what the owners settle on for the name but on checking the AIS (visible from the IMO link on the page) it is already giving out LPV (not Landing Platform Vessel) as the official name for the vessel. Still undecided though as I think the name by which it will become known is more likely to include Blue Origin in it Lyndaship (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is clear from all the authoritative sources that the current registered name of the ship is LPV (NASA's "is now called LPV, or Landing Platform Vessel" is not saying otherwise, but giving meaning to the owner's chosen initialism). It is not that unusual for ships to be given provisional names after purchase, and is often a contractual requirement by the previous owner where the name is recognisably associated with the seller, as with Stena Freighter. Landing Platform Vessel would clearly be wrong; Landing platform vessel would be a descriptive title, though is not really precise enough (eg: an aircraft carrier might considered the same). There is no great hurry as the present title is both clear and unambiguous, if a little bit wordy; by the time the ship is in service, we will know the actual registered name and the common name, if different, will emerge; we can discuss here again at that time if necessary. Davidships (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current photo of the ship as it is being refit

Someone drove by the ship in the dock where it is being refit, and totally reshaped, and they posted this photograph this week: photo link.

If you follow the additional link at the first link, you'll see this photographer has posted a gallery of photos of the ship. Perhaps someone might contact the photographer to see if they might agree to creative commons license one of the photos, so it might be used in the Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, the photographer (@Kyle_M_Photo) has released the photo File:Booster Explosion during SpaceX's In Flight Abort.jpg used on Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test. It appears to be uploaded by the user @Fragmen52:. So its not immediately clear if they are the same person. I did find their contact info on their website - but have not contacted them. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Blue Origin landing platform ship → Blue Origin landing platform – The current title is too WP:PRECISE since New Glenn is planned to land on a ship, NOT on land à la Falcon 9. The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's just no reason for this, and your own rationale makes it seem like it's even more necessary to have the word "ship" in the name. Aside from all that, this is the third renaming request by you in the past few months. Please stop. We will eventually get a proper name for the vessel. The article is fine where it is until then. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Huntster Lyndaship (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As time moves nearer to completion of the project, there is even less need to fiddle with the name. As I said before, there is no great hurry as the present title is both clear and unambiguous, if a little bit wordy; by the time the ship is in service, we will know the actual registered name and the common name, if different, will emerge; we can discuss here again at that time if necessary. Davidships (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ship renamed by Bezos

As of late December 2020, some reports have Jeff Bezos renaming the ship from LPV. Looking for a reliable source to update the article. Here is a tweet about it by photographer Kyle Montgomery, with a good photo of the ship being refit in Pensacola as of August 2020: "Jeff Bezos announced Blue Origin's ship previously know as the LPV is going to be renamed to Jacklyn after his mother. Here is a photo from when I visited it back in August. #BlueOrigin #LPV #BlueJacklyn"

Found a decent source and updated the article lede. Also moved the article to the new (and reliably sourced) ship name. N2e (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Blue Origin landing platform" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blue Origin landing platform has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 8 § Blue Origin landing platform until a consensus is reached. 64.229.88.34 (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)