Talk:Ever Given

Suezmax beam?

The widest beam allowed acoording to the article "Suezmax" is 50m but the Ever Given is 58m wide? ----Bancki (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"From 2010, the wetted surface cross sectional area of the ship is limited by 1006 m2, which means 20.1 metres (66 ft) of draft for ships with the beam no wider than 50.0 m (164.0 ft) or 12.2 metres (40 ft) of draft for ships with maximum allowed beam of 77.5 metres (254 ft).[3]" - this would mean that if your beam is more than 50 m, you need to have a lower draft, which the Ever Given presumably does.194.255.34.5 (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This incident shall be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, not least for insurance purposes. kencf0618 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the VesselFinder details available here, beam is 59 meters and draft is 15.7 meters. This gives a wetted cross-sectional area of 926 m², probably ±1%. I would be quite surprised if it was outside those limits. ArthropodOfDoom (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this phallic AIS track credible enough to be added?

I'm not confident enough with the image-uploading rules to upload the screenshot itself since I didn't take it, but this text should link to a tweet containing a screencap of the track in question. I tried to make a backup on the Internet Archive in case the tweet is deleted, but I'm not confident that I did it right, so feel free to make another backup. BenevolentChaos347 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that can be uploaded as-is because it is a screenshot of a copyrighted website. I'm not sure if the tracked path data itself is copyrighted, but if it isn't, you could trace the path onto a free map, such as an OpenStreetMap screenshot or {{Maplink}}. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hate to be a spoilsport, but do we know for sure this is an actual intended drawing of said piece of human anatomy and not just the result of having to do a few circles (for whatever reason)? I've been on flights before, and tracking the holding patterns made before landing, the circular and occasionally oblong circular patterns often result in something that you could interpret to be a 'peen. Anyway, simply posting the screenshot and saying "that's a dong" would be WP:OR, but bringing up the attention the event got in social media, how maritime tracking websites were sources of information, and how commentators and news outlets reported speculations on the phallic shape might work? Even then, somebody might dislike the addition unless it comes from a reliable source (which random people on social media and news outlets probably are not). That is, unless they've consulted sources on the subject of drawing sea wangs, e.g. with somebody experienced in captaining giant container ships. EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's somebody giving a plausible explaining for why this might not be a GPS Drawing: [1] EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

In case no one has checked, the radius of the small circles is about equal to the length of the ship. It would have been either at anchor or turning using the bow thruster. The even smaller movements inside the trefoil also suggest it was at anchor. Note also that there does not appear to be incoming track to the centre of the pattern. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Image

The current image of the blocking File:Ever Given Suez Canal 24 March 2021.jpg (a Copernicus satellite shot?) is almost unusable. The only other image at Commons seems to be File:Ever Given container ship.jpg? There are a few videos online but I guess these are all copyright protected and could not be used for a frame grab? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There's an image floating around taken by a crew member on the Maersk vessel stuck behind it. Worth looking into finding the source for that. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it's still floating. Wikipedia makes me feel so grounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The image File:Ever Given container ship.jpg must be an older ship and not the current one. This image is from 2011, but the ship from this Article is build 2015. And the ship on the file File:Ever Given container ship.jpg is much smaller than the one at this article. The ship on the image can carry 13 container in parallel, the at the article can carry 23 in parallel (over the beam / across the width). --GodeNehler (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this instagram post by @fallenhearts17. Not the world's most reliable source but if someone wants to ask her if she's okay with having the photo on wikipedia, or instruct her on how to do it herself, that would not be a bad idea to provide context for the grounding section. Would assist the current Sentinel-Hub provided satellite imagery currently present. ArthropodOfDoom (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW Airbus Space posted a picture taken by Pléiades. That's a program / sat of the french space agency (CNES), might be worth checking what license the picture is available under. It's of a very high quality too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.246.146 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like French government works are still copyrighted. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Chinese name: 長賜輪

Is there any citation for this name being official? It's not painted on the ship's hull. Is she registered under this name anywhere? If it's not official, it's probably a translated name, and we shouldn't have it in brackets in the opening of the article? Slac speak up! 20:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an English translation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that it's Chinese, it's "Eternal Gift Ship" (I think). Without knowing for sure, it reads to me like a Chinese translation of the English name, rather than vice versa. AFAICT the ship is not registered under that name. Slac speak up! 22:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. It's the "Suez blockage gift that just keeps on giving." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The ship is registered as Ever Given in all international registers. I have never seen a ship being registered with two names at the same time and I'm not sure if it's even possible. I propose removing all references to "Chinese name" unless there are WP:RS to support it. Tupsumato (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If the ship had a non-English name, an English translation of the name (namesake) could be included in the article for information (example). However, giving a Chinese translation to an English name (Ever Given) in the English-language Wikipedia does not really make sense. Tupsumato (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the Chinese name might make more sense to a native Chinese speaker than "Ever Given" does to an English speaker. Might it be a poor English translation that has produced the "official name"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Taiwanese company owning the ship, has a whole series of ships. All their names are starting with "Ever": "Ever X", "Ever Y" ... --Ingoneur (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, maybe so, but what exactly does "Ever Given" mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspect it means they ran out of more fitting "G" names. Evergreen has hundreds of ships. --Roland 12:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The sister ships of Ever Given are Ever Genius, Ever Gentle, Ever Gifted, Ever Globe, Ever Glory, Ever Golden, Ever Goods, Ever Govern, Ever Grade and Ever Greet in Evergreen's fleet; in addition, there are two MOL vessels built to the same design. The "G" names seem to be a mix of various word types and there's probably no "meaning" beyond what Roland said. Tupsumato (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the "Chinese name" due to lack of sources supporting a double naming scheme unprecedented in international commercial shipping. You are welcome to add the information back if it can be cited with WP:RS. Tupsumato (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you kindly stop adding the "Chinese name" to the article unless it can be cited from WP:RS; a mere {{citation-needed}} is not enough. Ship names are not translated and every ship has only one name (at a time) in the official registers. Tupsumato (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The information was re-added with a general non-specific reference to the Evergreen Marine website. The name is indeed listed there, but given that there is only one name in the official register and per this discussion, I've removed it again. (And added a note directing to discuss to the talk page.) Per the edit summaries with the "people are curious about the weird name", honestly, the name "Ever Given" isn't even overly nonsensical in English (as far as ship names go), so the "necessity" per those edit summaries doesn't even necessarily exist anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the "Chinese name" used by Evergreen [2] a distinct name or simply direct translation from "Ever Given" into Chinese? Perhaps we could add a remark to the same footnote that already covers "Evergreen vs. Ever Given"? Somehow I'm seeing this yet another "Xue Long 2 vs. Snow Dragon 2" case where it's just the opposite of translating the Chinese-language name into English in English-language news (I've even seen in translated to Finnish in a Finnish-language news, but I think they stopped after I proposing literally translating Balder Viking...). Tupsumato (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Suez

The Suez incident should be a separate article, if this condition persists, since if it persists it would no longer be about the ship per se, it would be about the impact on global trade, which would be inappropriate to cover in the ship article in particular. Only what happens to the ship would need to be here, if we were to have a separate article -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Description

This article could do with a description section. The details are in the infobox and referenced there, but the infobox is only supposed to be a brief overview. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Seatrade-maritime

Good source here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What attacks?

Page mentions a concern for attacks on vessels awaiting passage? There’s absolutely no history for this occurrence and the concern is not justified. Mohamed Diaa 1975 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is Associated Press here, but the "official" is unnamed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear that that sentence is being attributed to the unnamed Egyptian official. It may be in the journalist's voice, referring to the paras further down with the quote from Dryad Global, where they are specifically talking about the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (well known for piracy), but not the Gulf of Suez (which isn't). Not a germane point for Ever Given - and pretty speculative regarding the incident in general. Davidships (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the attribution is marginal at best and ambiguous at worst. After re-reading, it looks more like an editorial flourish. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

However, Forbes brings it up here, with talk of possible involvement of the U. S. Navy? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gotta be a punchline somewhere here

A ship registered in Panama, built/owned by Japanese, operated by Taiwanese, crewed by Indians, traversing an Egyptian-built Canal, carrying Chinese goods enroute to Netherlands via Malaysia. Rwat128 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You're leaving out the French. Kablammo (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How is French involved?Rwat128 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ferdinand de Lesseps and Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez. Kablammo (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I blame this guy, who thought the Red Sea was 28 ft higher than the Mediterranean. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly spooked by the lack of Brits. I just expect them to come in and wreck it all any moment now EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

They tried that in 1956 and got burned. Kablammo (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"The UK government said British experts are ready to assist if required." So yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That's actually the Americans, who joins via B-52 stratofortress bombing campaign to release the stuck ship. Luckily no collateral damages reported this time around.Rwat128 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Going around the cape! Des Vallee (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently that is the punchline. As it's already happening. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Reject modernity of the Suez embrace the pirate buckling days of the Cape! Des Vallee (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

insured by british?! 2A01:4B00:85FD:D700:F8D7:AEB8:3033:CAD (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ship is also known as Evergreen

Per WP:COMMONNAME the ship is largely known as "Evergreen" because of it's massive word painted on it's side, and multiple sources and people simply refer to it as "evergreen" therefore we should add it is also known as Evergreen. Des Vallee (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Evergreen is not the ship's name, but the name of the shipping company, which emblazons the company's name on the side of its vessels. COSCO, Hapag-Lloyd, Matson, and other shippers do the same. Kablammo (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Kablammo I know but multiple sources refer to the ship as just "Evergreen" and per common-name we should at least mention it. As per example Japan isn't the offical name which is "Empire of Japan" likewise the Weimar republic wasn't it's official name. Des Vallee (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If the practice becomes widespread, we could write something like "some media sources have started referring to Ever Given incorrectly as 'Evergreen', the name of the shipping company written on the hull..." Tupsumato (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I can agree it just needs enough sources referring to the ship as "Evergreen" which there is an adequate amount, in my view. Des Vallee (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Then I believe we can add a remark somewhere, if not in the article body itself then as a footnote after the ship name in lead and infobox. Tupsumato (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, thank you for correcting my misimpression of your remarks. Unless the the mistaken naming in the media continues, I don't see a need to use it; the reliable sources get it right. And I don't think we should repeat a mistake. But if a clarification is needed (because of continued mistaken usage), an explanatory footnote should be enough. Kablammo (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved it to footnote. Tupsumato (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: Is this ([3], [4]) what you mean? The headlines are misleading, but the articles themselves make it clear it's Ever Given. It also isn't that common; aside from industry publications, I could only find a few examples on Google. Esszet (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tupsumato, Kablammo, and Firefangledfeathers: Do you know what he's talking about? Esszet (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't try and explain what another editor thinks, but I can explain my own thoughts! In my view, enough secondary sources note some confusion about the name that a footnote explanation is likely to helpful to Wikipedia readers. This source is a good example of how the news is addressing that confusion. Anecdotally, I saw a lot of social media posts referring to the ship as just "Evergreen." Between those posts and the news coverage, I think we have ample reason for the current footnote. Since WP:COMMONNAME was brought up above, I would say that we shouldn't change the title of this article unless (bizarrely) the majority of reliable sources started using that name for the ship. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was thinking with the footnote. Tupsumato (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Media reports referring to "the Evergreen vessel" or "the Evergreen container ship" etc., were quite fair, of course, reflecting the name of the operator. It was, after all, the only one of their ships that was grounded. Some readers may have then assumed that was the name of the ship. Others may not have. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If most of the confusion was on social media, it isn't much to worry about, people are probably forgetting about it already (welcome to 2021). I'd say leave it there for another week or two tops; people will be on to an entirely new set of headlines by then. Esszet (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a "Golden class"?

I went through the sources in Golden-class container ship and none of them seem to refer to the ship series as "Golden class". Instead, Evergreen Marine themselves seems to refer to their ship classes as "types" using a single letter which, in turn, is reflected in the ship names; for example F-type. Sometimes the dash is omitted (i.e. F type).

Furthermore, the "Golden class" is a standard design (Imabari 20000) which was also used for two container ships operated by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL) as per IHS Sea-web.

I know ship classes are often named after the lead ship. Sometimes this is done by the operators since the beginning, sometimes a class name emerges from other sources over time. More often than not ship enthusiasts go around naming classes and then fight about it among themselves ("It should be 'Ever Golden class', not 'Golden class'!"). However, you can't go around naming things in this world now, particularly if you're an online encyclopedia. So, do we have WP:RS referring to this (these) ship(s) as "Golden class"? I did a Google search up to Monday and found this blog from 2019 referring to this particular ship as "Ever Golden class", but nothing from e.g. the shipping company. Unfortunately the fact that some of their ships feature a "G-type engine" (MAN G95) complicates searches somewhat...

Tupsumato (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The ship class page was originally named Ever Golden-class container ship, after the first ship. At some point it was renamed to remove the Ever prefix which I find a bit weird, as it is not really optional. As far as I know 'Golden-class' is not really a thing. At least I have never seen it being used anywhere. KiaaTiX (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree this is worth consideration. Suggest take discussion to Golden-class container ship's talk page section about this. --Cornellier (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"She" vs. "it"

As per WP:SHE4SHIPS (and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS), the pronoun to be used in this article should not be needlessly changed. The first use is "it" as per first use and it has been switched to "she" at least twice. Please refrain from changing it from "it" to "she" from now on. Tupsumato (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. During the first 200+ versions of this article "it" was used. Our policies are clear; the pronoun usage should conform to that. (BBC, Bloomberg, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal also use "it"; I have not checked the other cited sources.) Kablammo (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the change was performed by Mattmag (talk · contribs) saying, 'she' is the correct English pronoun for ships. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_(ships_as_%22she%22). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer "she". However, it is the creator's choice, so in this instance "it" is to be used. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we actually reflect this ("creator's choice") in our project guideline? Tupsumato (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought it already was, where it says that articles shouldn't be changed from one to the other. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's true. Perhaps emphasizing it further is not necessary. Tupsumato (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My mistake - I thought the article originally used "she" so I reverted a previous edit. Mattmag (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I actually also thought the switcheroo had begun with "she" before I dived into the revision history. Tupsumato (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Navbox

I've restored the navbox to the article. Established practice is that the navbox links to both ship and incident, and both are linked in the navbox. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Short description change?

Should it be changed to add "Panamanian"? So "Panamanian golden-class container ship"? Does that sound good to add? I only wanted to discuss this in case the elite users personally disagree on my stance. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Panamanian"-registered is true of most ships of this kind, and so is not a very good differentiator. But I certainly don't consider myself "an elite user"! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Having edits be reverted is the worst feeling though, especially on high-profile articles, which is why I fear the "elite users" from reverting my edits. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

While the ship is indeed flagged to Panama, a well-known flag of convenience, I would be very reluctant to describe the ship as "Panamanian" because it is, after all, a flag of convenience. Also, as per discussion on this page and here, I also wouldn't necessarily describe the ship as "Golden-class". Tupsumato (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tupsumato. How about "One of the world's largest container ships" which I think sums up its essence. PROTIP you can open the Wikipedia app on your phone, search the subject, and see the short desc. in the results. --Cornellier (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, seems it's actually joint 13th in the list. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Name meaning

What does "Ever Given" even mean? For such a bizarre name, I think it deserves some explanation in the article.78.35.8.194 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What does Celebrity Equinox mean? Or Mariella? Ship names do not always "make sense". The ship name has been explained in the article: it follows the shipyard's naming scheme for this particular series of ships where all ships are named Ever G—. Tupsumato (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, the Ever G— naming theme could be explained better. EditorInTheRye (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarified a bit. Tupsumato (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Even when the theme is Ever G, "Given" is still stuch a strange word to use for a name. I think we need some explanation on the naming intention. I'm sure there must be something lost in translation from Chinese. 78.35.8.194 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I thought much the same. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm still going to insist on there being no "translation from Chinese": all 11 ships of the class were given (he-he) names beginning with Ever G— which is explained in the article. This ship got the word "Given". Someone saw it a fitting name and there's no more to it. Tupsumato (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree per User:Tupsumato, no need to "look for meaning". --Cornellier (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Most likely, the only meaning is that the people who had to name them probably couldn't think of enough meaningful names, and started naming them something more useful instead, with first letters signifying the class of the ship. It's unlikely there's a source explaining this, however - so it'll just have to be up to the reader to interpret it as such. EditorInTheRye (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous ships named Ever Given

I have seen several articles (including on this talk page) using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ever_Given_container_ship.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ever_Given_container_ship_(cropped).jpg as pictures of the ship involved in the 2021 grounding. Those two pictures, from NOAA, are of an earlier, smaller, and differently laid out Ever Given container ship. Also, the date on those pictures is 2011, which is seven years before today's Ever Given was launched in 2018. Perhaps this article should point that out? 174.127.176.33 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Added. Tupsumato (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Was wondering about the photo which is mis-used in Lopez, Margaux (29 March 2021). "The Ever Given and the physics of big ships clogged the Suez Canal". Massive Science. Retrieved 30 March 2021.. Have added links to the Commons descriptions at (IMO 9811000), (IMO 8320901) . dave souza, talk 07:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Post Freeing

It's probably notable that the Ever Given was towed (or moved under he own power?) to the Great Bitter Lake, where she has sat at anchor ever since. If possible find out if she's awaiting a more thorough inspection or if she's "in the penalty box" until the backlog is cleared. Or possibly she's been impounded against fines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Collision vs allision?

Sinking of the Titanic uses the word "collision" 28 times. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The iceberg was floating freely in open water, so one could argue that it was (technically) moving very slowly. The bed of the Suez Canal was not moving... Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite agree. But it's the 2019 event in Hamburg that's the subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC) p.s. I think we can all agree the iceberg was floating, but can anyone say it was definitely moving at the moment of collision? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, my mistake. The Finkenwerder was berthed at the ferry pier, so again (technically) free to move, same as the iceberg. I think this is a hair-splitting exercise. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder does it make any difference for the purposes of insurance. In my experience, insurance assessors like to ascertain he exact colour of the two pieces once the hair has been split. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The source we cited uses the word allision. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Mikhail Voytenko at FleetMon, in the first source, uses the word "brushed"?! Yes, Vessletracjker, in the second source, uses the word "allision" in the item title, but also uses "slammed into"! The third source is in German, but GoogleTranslate gives "rams" and "collided", with no sign of any "allision"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Good points. The way I see the situation, we have a precise technical term that describes what happened and that is supported by sources. Collision is also supported, non-technical, and less precisely descriptive.

Allision may confuse readers, some of whom might edit the article thinking they are correcting a mistake. The wiktionary link serves to educate and inform readers and hopefully prevent that confusion and "correcting." To me, the benefits of including precise language and informing readers outweigh the disadvantages of potential confusion.

I am not looking to edit war over two words or take ownership of this page, so anyone should feel free to change it if they can achieve some consensus here. If changed to collision, some language should be added to specify that Finkenwerder was berthed and stationary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is meant to educate. But I now see that the New York Post here has hit, struck and mangled. Maybe a bit tabloid? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a term of jargon, which is unrecognized in common speech, and likely to confuse readers. We also have another term which is not wrong, but is less precise. Collision is a better term here, because the difference only exists in a very narrow usage, which is a form of technical language not used by the vast vast vast vast majority of our users. We should use the words that our readers would understand, especially when they are not actually wrong in the dialects they will be speaking themselves. --Jayron32 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You prompted me to read MOS:JARGON and I now think I was wrong. Would this language work for everyone? Is berthed too technical? Changes in italics:

2019 Hamburg collision

On 9 February 2019, the ship collided with and heavily damaged the Finkenwerder, a 25-metre-long (82 ft) HADAG ferry boat which was berthed at Blankenese, near the harbour of Hamburg. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Gosh, Jayron, that IS vast.

Also looks fine to me. I must admit I'd not heard of the word "allision" before. It does seem to be a technical term used in maritime law and most readers, like me, would not have come across it before. For that reason, I would vote to change to collide/collision per MOS:JARGON. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. I also think "allision" is too obscure a word. The fact that a wiktionary link (which we would not require for collision/collide) is included does not save it; it just serves to acknowledge the word's obscurity.

I would be all for using allision if collision were wrong; but it's not. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"EVERGREEN" on side of ship

Has anyone else noticed that the ship is called Evergiven but the word on the side of the ship is "Evergreen"? Daltoids (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Daltoids, see Ever_Given#Notes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I didnt see that at the bottom of the page when i first looked. Daltoids (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the explanatory note has been removed. I don't have an opinion on its presence or absence, so I'm not reverting, and will leave the disposition to the more active editors here. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it has been not more than six days before someone asked about it, I'm going to bring it back for the time being. Tupsumato (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)