Talk:HSS 1500
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Merger with High-speed Sea Service edit
- Support - Insufficiently different from the HSS 900 to have a separate article. Not even linked from the High-speed Sea Service page. Bjmullan (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Castle of the Seas - RS? edit
The reference recently added by user:Van Speijk is nothing but a personal photo blog by a guy called Robert Klein and fails WP:RS. Unless someone can come up with a reliable source it will be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rubbish. It's a comprehensive analysis of shipping and is itself well referenced. The material could just as easily be in print, but just happens to be online instead. Van Speijk (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- So who is this Robert Klien and what authority does he having regarding the HSS 1500? This really is a clear case of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Bjmullan (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest you take it to the RS noticeboard. Having looked at it again, you could be right, but AGF or not, I doubt this would have come up if it didn't relate to the British Isles. Van Speijk (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be funny but this is a clear case of WP:SELFPUBLISH and unless someone comes up with a RS it will be removed at some stage. I am not wasting my time with poor references. If you disagree you can then go to the noticeboard. Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. I've put a reference in. If you want to challenge it then do so at the appropriate forum. The onus is on you to do so. You can't just remove a reference because you don't like it. Van Speijk (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have it your way then. Bjmullan (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- The statement and reference have now been removed as per WP:RSN. Next time rather than wasting my time, pause and think before adding such a clearly unsuitable reference. Bjmullan (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to have tons of time to waste, so I suggest you don't get too hot and bothered about it. Van Speijk (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The statement and reference have now been removed as per WP:RSN. Next time rather than wasting my time, pause and think before adding such a clearly unsuitable reference. Bjmullan (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have it your way then. Bjmullan (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. I've put a reference in. If you want to challenge it then do so at the appropriate forum. The onus is on you to do so. You can't just remove a reference because you don't like it. Van Speijk (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be funny but this is a clear case of WP:SELFPUBLISH and unless someone comes up with a RS it will be removed at some stage. I am not wasting my time with poor references. If you disagree you can then go to the noticeboard. Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest you take it to the RS noticeboard. Having looked at it again, you could be right, but AGF or not, I doubt this would have come up if it didn't relate to the British Isles. Van Speijk (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- So who is this Robert Klien and what authority does he having regarding the HSS 1500? This really is a clear case of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Bjmullan (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
British Isles and use of sources edit
- I'm one of those who commented at RSN. As Van Speijk properly observed, I have not yet stuck my oar in the troubled waters of the British Isles naming dispute, and have only the vaguest understanding of why it's such a big deal. I understand that there are a few centuries of unpleasant relations between Ireland and the UK, so might be able to see why certain Irish people might not like being told they live on the British Isles; and also understand that certain British people might be proud that some name the island group after them, and glorious history and tyranny and bloodshed and sovereignty and paternalism and all that. Fine. But, gentlemen ... this is a ship. A modern ship. It does not vote. It has no opinions. It is not a historical relic. It does not participate in the glorious struggle. It carries people and/or freight from point A to point B, and it, and quite likely its crew and owners, do not care if points A and B are named British Isles or perfidious Albion or even France, as long as they have adequate port facilities, and the fare is paid. Why, in the name of all the ships at sea, is this such a big deal in this particular article? I don't see anything in the article about this ship being the chosen arms-running vehicle of the IRA - is it? --GRuban (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is a very good question, and I struggle with it myself. For the record, here was the pertinent text from article creation in Decemebr 2009 until March this year [1]. Mention of the British Isles was removed here [2]. The term "Brtish Isles" is in everyday use and is commonly taken to mean the islands of GB, Ireland and a few others, without any other conditions attached to its use - apart from in Wikipedia where attempts have neen made to do just that ("you can only use British Isles if it includes GB, I, IoM, CI and ideally every other island in the group") but there is no policy as such. Bjmullan asks "what makes the British Isles unique to High Speed Ferry design?". Nothing. What has that got do with with where these craft operate? As for this reference [3] it states "The Stena HSS exceeds by a wide margin the stability requirements currently applicable, as well as those it is thought will apply in the future, to this type of vessel in northern European waters." That says absolutely nothing about where the craft operates. It merely notes an area, northern European waters, in which certain technical requirements must be met. To infer from this that northern European waters is where the craft actually operates is, at best, synthesis. The reference I offer [4] gives an unambiguous statement about where the craft opearates. As suggested at the RS noticeboard it is "good enough". We should add this reference to the current article unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. For example, if it can be shown to be wrong. Van Speijk (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Van Speijk you are nothing but an SPA with a second rate reference. The HSS 1500 operates/operated outside of the British Isles and therefore your reference is nothing more that an attempt to introduce the term for the sake of it. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not resort to name calling. As for moving your comment, I didn't. I just copied it to aid the flow of the discussion. Now look what we're left with; a first comment without a context. I suggest you either put back a copy of your comment or add some explanatory text at the start of this section. Van Speijk (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Van Speijk you are nothing but an SPA with a second rate reference. The HSS 1500 operates/operated outside of the British Isles and therefore your reference is nothing more that an attempt to introduce the term for the sake of it. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is a very good question, and I struggle with it myself. For the record, here was the pertinent text from article creation in Decemebr 2009 until March this year [1]. Mention of the British Isles was removed here [2]. The term "Brtish Isles" is in everyday use and is commonly taken to mean the islands of GB, Ireland and a few others, without any other conditions attached to its use - apart from in Wikipedia where attempts have neen made to do just that ("you can only use British Isles if it includes GB, I, IoM, CI and ideally every other island in the group") but there is no policy as such. Bjmullan asks "what makes the British Isles unique to High Speed Ferry design?". Nothing. What has that got do with with where these craft operate? As for this reference [3] it states "The Stena HSS exceeds by a wide margin the stability requirements currently applicable, as well as those it is thought will apply in the future, to this type of vessel in northern European waters." That says absolutely nothing about where the craft operates. It merely notes an area, northern European waters, in which certain technical requirements must be met. To infer from this that northern European waters is where the craft actually operates is, at best, synthesis. The reference I offer [4] gives an unambiguous statement about where the craft opearates. As suggested at the RS noticeboard it is "good enough". We should add this reference to the current article unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. For example, if it can be shown to be wrong. Van Speijk (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you both be satisfied if we wrote that the HSS 1500 initially served routes between the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands? That avoids the annoying two words, and we can use the above reference, and also this one, which, at least to me, looks pretty good. [5] --GRuban (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- The words are not annoyiong, and you don't need to ask whether Bjmullan would find this version acceptable, of course he would, given that it avoids use of the term he dislikes. For my part, I don't accept the need for this perverse political correctness. Time and again we are told by the anti-British Isles lobby "that's not what the reference says" and we must slavishly follow the precise wording of references with no scope whatsoever for abbreviating say, "UK, I, and Isle of Man" to "British Isles", so that should be the case here. Van Speijk (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er ... see that reference I provided? It doesn't use "British Isles" (oh darn I said it - turn, turn, turn, ptui, ptui) the
annoyingglorious two words. But it does mention specific locations in Ireland (Dun Laoghaire), Wales (Holyhead), Scotland (Stranraer), Northern Ireland (Belfast), England (Harwich) and the Netherlands (Hoek). (I don't see Isle of Man represented, I admit, but I wouldn't be surprised...) So, should we even be slavishly bound to use theannoyingmarvelous two words if they showed up in our only reference, here we clearly have at least one which goes into more detail without using them. If Bjmullan would accept this, I'd recommend we give it a try - unless you believe this ship was created by a consortium of British nationalists. (In which case we'd have to explain why they sailed it to Holland - fans of William III of Orange, perchance?) I agree it's perverse political correctness to avoid writing "British Isles" (o d - t,t,t,p,p), but it is no less perverse to insist on saying it when it's not necessary. Again, gentlemen, this is an article about a model of commercial ship. Not war, or history, or politics. Surely there is something to be said for picking something else to argue about than these two words? --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)- GRuban I like your humour and would be happy to go with your suggestion. I bet your Canadian??? Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well there's a surprise. Of course it's quite easy to find alternative references that don't use particular words. How about we use both references then? Multiple referencing of facts is commonplace here, and the two references are not contradictory. The first one mentioning British Isles is good for the lead, where general information is given, then the second one further on when more detail is gone into. That way, Bjmullan gets his preferred reference, GRuban gets his and I get mine. Is that a win-win situation? Van Speijk (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er - why do you insist on using an unnecessarily controversial term in this article again? If this article was somehow connected to the UK/Ireland dispute, I could potentially imagine it being important. But this is a commercial ship. There are plenty of history/politics/warfare articles to go argue about the use of the term being necessary. I don't see it here. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be forgetting, it was there to start with in this article - right from the word go. Please put the alternative point to Bjmullan who removed the term - "why do you insist on removing an uncontroversial term from this article?" (the BI naming dispute article is total OR, by the way). Are you suggesting that it's fine for editors to go around removing terms just because they don't like it? Van Speijk (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Being there to start with isn't sufficient - remember, we're here to be an encyclopedia for people to read first, and for editors to have fun editing second. The readers do not, and should not, care what was there to start with. They only care what is there now. When you open the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eh? Britannica? Wink wink, nudge nudge?) do you compare the article you are reading to its original form in the 1911 edition? In this article, the term is an unnecessary source of controversy, and, as demonstrated by the presence of Holland in the list, isn't even accurate. We'd have to write "two of the British Isles, and Holland", which seems silly at best. "Ireland, the UK, and Holland" is accurate, especially given that all 4 member countries of the UK seem to be quite present in that list. If you like, I can start a Wikipedia:Request for Comments and get more editors to weigh in, but I will stake my non-existent virtual hat that consensus will say that this argument belongs on the WP:LAME list, so if we can both get rid of it and actually make the article more accurate, we certainly should. Pick your battles, sir. This is not one of those. If this were an article on British history or politics or maybe even geography, you might have a point, I'm not willing to prognosticate, save your energy for that. But it's an article about a commercial ship. If there are to be controversies in this article, that's fine, but they should be that another model ship is claimed to be faster, or that some designer in Sweden claims that the design was stolen from him, or that Greenpeace claims it uses too many fossil fuels and pollutes the environment, or that some lawyer is suing because it's a bad design and will sink as soon as it hits the first iceberg, something like that. It should not be that the term we happen to choose to use for the area it happened to first sail around is controversial. If you want to add more information to the article that actually has to do with the ship, please, go ahead. If you are only here to make this article a battleground for an unrelated controversy, please, don't. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You really are talking bullshit, and are unfortunately missing the point. You say "In this article, the term is an unnecessary source of controversy". Yes, only because we have an editor like Bjmullan who trawls wikipedia looking for instances of British Isles to have them removed. It is not otherwise controversial. I take your point about being there to start with (but you banal remarks along the way add nothing); it's fair comment. The ship sails around the British Isles, fact. It also goes to Holland, apparently, and various other locations. Stating British Isles, as it originally was, is fine and we wouldn't even be having this argument if it wasn't for editors pushing their particular POV on this terminology and dreaming up various ways to have it removed, e.g by placing a request for citation tag against the words and then returning six months later to remove them. Unfortunately this article in just the latest in a long list of articles that have been plagued by the desire on the part of a very small number of editors (two I think) to eliminate use of British Isles. The subject matter of the article is irrelevant. What matters is the article should not be subject to the type of POV pushing we have here. Bjmullan asked for a reference. I found one. You said it was good enough, so there we have it. If you want to add more detailed information then feel free to do so. Van Speijk (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Being there to start with isn't sufficient - remember, we're here to be an encyclopedia for people to read first, and for editors to have fun editing second. The readers do not, and should not, care what was there to start with. They only care what is there now. When you open the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eh? Britannica? Wink wink, nudge nudge?) do you compare the article you are reading to its original form in the 1911 edition? In this article, the term is an unnecessary source of controversy, and, as demonstrated by the presence of Holland in the list, isn't even accurate. We'd have to write "two of the British Isles, and Holland", which seems silly at best. "Ireland, the UK, and Holland" is accurate, especially given that all 4 member countries of the UK seem to be quite present in that list. If you like, I can start a Wikipedia:Request for Comments and get more editors to weigh in, but I will stake my non-existent virtual hat that consensus will say that this argument belongs on the WP:LAME list, so if we can both get rid of it and actually make the article more accurate, we certainly should. Pick your battles, sir. This is not one of those. If this were an article on British history or politics or maybe even geography, you might have a point, I'm not willing to prognosticate, save your energy for that. But it's an article about a commercial ship. If there are to be controversies in this article, that's fine, but they should be that another model ship is claimed to be faster, or that some designer in Sweden claims that the design was stolen from him, or that Greenpeace claims it uses too many fossil fuels and pollutes the environment, or that some lawyer is suing because it's a bad design and will sink as soon as it hits the first iceberg, something like that. It should not be that the term we happen to choose to use for the area it happened to first sail around is controversial. If you want to add more information to the article that actually has to do with the ship, please, go ahead. If you are only here to make this article a battleground for an unrelated controversy, please, don't. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be forgetting, it was there to start with in this article - right from the word go. Please put the alternative point to Bjmullan who removed the term - "why do you insist on removing an uncontroversial term from this article?" (the BI naming dispute article is total OR, by the way). Are you suggesting that it's fine for editors to go around removing terms just because they don't like it? Van Speijk (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er - why do you insist on using an unnecessarily controversial term in this article again? If this article was somehow connected to the UK/Ireland dispute, I could potentially imagine it being important. But this is a commercial ship. There are plenty of history/politics/warfare articles to go argue about the use of the term being necessary. I don't see it here. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well there's a surprise. Of course it's quite easy to find alternative references that don't use particular words. How about we use both references then? Multiple referencing of facts is commonplace here, and the two references are not contradictory. The first one mentioning British Isles is good for the lead, where general information is given, then the second one further on when more detail is gone into. That way, Bjmullan gets his preferred reference, GRuban gets his and I get mine. Is that a win-win situation? Van Speijk (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- GRuban I like your humour and would be happy to go with your suggestion. I bet your Canadian??? Bjmullan (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Er ... see that reference I provided? It doesn't use "British Isles" (oh darn I said it - turn, turn, turn, ptui, ptui) the
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HSS 1500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208023829/http://www.dlharbour.ie/content/stena/hss_story.php to http://www.dlharbour.ie/content/stena/hss_story.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211123020/http://geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/marine/marine_20020909.html to http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/marine/marine_20020909.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)