Talk:SS Gothenburg/Archive 1

Passenger lists

I don't see the relevance of including exhaustive passenger lists here as they are not notable, and do not add anything to the story. Suggest that noteworthy passengers are mentioned in text, and the other passengers just summarised (and possibly moved into a separate list article). Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The fact that many roads were named after the victims was the reason this article appeared on DYK. Removing this section would make the DYK pointless. Whilst not all are notable in themselves, they are all connected with the Gothenburg and worth a mention. Wikipedia should give comprehensive coverage rather than summaries where possible. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't seen another shipwreck-related article that includes an exhaustive list of passengers. Look especially at featured and good shipwreck articles. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Do you propose to AfD List_of_passengers_onboard_RMS_Titanic and List_of_crew_members_onboard_RMS_Titanic too? It they are notable enough to have a list separate to the main article, then the Gothenburg's list of passengers has enough notability to stay.

Those lists are separate from the main article for good reason: they are unencyclopedic, will never reach GA or FA status, as seen by the fact that they barely escaped deletion 6 months ago. Also, it does not follow that a separate, low importance passenger list article for the Titanic implies that an exhaustive embedded passenger list for the Gothenburg is important or encyclopedic. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples of the Titanic lists don't seem particularly relevant to me in this case. People are notable in the press, at least, for having been Titanic survivors, with articles at their passing. I know that this is not a formal deletion discussion, but don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify keeping this. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I also oppose the deletion of the section, as it completes the article. Additionally, the article should be as comprehensive as possible and from my experience, readers are very interested in people connected with disasters. I suggest we consider other opinions, such as Wiki Project Australia, before making a hasty decision. Spy007au (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll see what the GA reviewers say too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments 1) Is the section formally nominated for deletion? I can't see it in the AfD list. 2) The list of crew members onboard RMS Titanic has not been through the AfD process. 3) This article does not seem to have been nominated for GA Review. IMO it would be premature to nominate it now, although it probably needs reassessment from the Ships project. 4) Spy007au - is that a comment or an oppose? If it is an oppose then it should be clearly stated as such. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - For reasons set out above.Spy007au (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove complete lists (keeping any notable people); WP:BIO states that lists of people are assumed to be lists of notable people, and not exhaustive lists of all people associated with a notable subject. Rewrite to include the fact that many streets are named for individuals that were victims. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment WP:BIO states:-

This page documents a notability guideline on the English Wikipedia. While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense.

I believe that this case is one of those occasional exceptions. It is referenced and relevant to the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be contrary or anything, but you say that these lists should be exceptions to a strong guideline, but, other than because 'it's referenced', you don't provide any reasons. Can you provide some reasons why this rates an exception? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Would think they could be broken out into a daughter article Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg would be more appropriate, agree that retention of the full list within the article are problematic especially crew killed as only one on that table has any legacy information. Gnangarra 13:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • clarify note removediff was added to my comment, I'm oppose to the deletion of the information I think it can be better presented separate to the article. Gnangarra 13:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding - I know you weren't suggesting deletion. I believe we're talking about the same thing though, as a move is equally acceptable. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have created a daugther page to the main article and transfered the passenger and crew lists.Spy007au (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its at Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg, and was tag with {{prod}} which I have removed Gnangarra 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks everyone, matter resolved. I've nominated the article for WP:GA Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think a GA nomination is premature as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg may have implications to the article. Gnangarra 10:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of following the advice of the GA reviewer below by re-including these lists as collapsible tables. I hope that makes a suitable compromise for everyone. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD and deleted the other article after these developments. Gnangarra 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR in passenger lists

Setting aside the issue of the appropriateness of the survivors/victims lists (which is discussed above), the way I read the article and its sourcing — please correct me if I am wrong — is as follows: The 1875 J. H. Lewis-published lists have errors, misspellings, etc., that have been corrected by WP editors. If this is correct, sources for corrections (or corrected lists) should be included. Without additional sources it could be reasonably interpreted as original research. Can someone clarify? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Without sources it'd be a simpal spelling error(that should be fixed), where the list says it was spelt wrong at source then that should be cited, add {{fact}}. Either way it isnt WP:OR as there is no conclusion. To say that Joe Bloggs must also have been on the ship because he was Tom Citizens footman and then included him in the list of passengers would be OR. Likewise to add a Joe Bloggs to the list of victims because there is no record of him after the event, or to say he was a fireman because the vessel had 8 there was only 7 listed in the crew and his position in the crew wasnt listed so he must have been one. Gnangarra 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I have caused any confusion. The passenger and crew list in the article was reconciled against an extensive article written by Helen Wilson, which has been quoted earlier in the article. In hindsight, I agree the way I wrote the section appears as if I made the changes/corrections, which is not the case. I am happy for someone with far better editing skills than me to make the appropriate changes.Spy007au (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Wilson ref to the text, which should solve the problem. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)