Talk:Superfast Ferries

Notability

Recent articles M/S Superfast VII, M/S Superfast VIII, and M/S Superfast IX almost certainly fail Wikipedia's requirement for notability. I appreciate that the current article here, which refers to them as "see also" articles is visually neat, but I think if nominated for deletion, the articles would indeed go, and the information would have to be included here; this is in line not just with notability requirements but also the spirit of the guidelines about including "subsidiary bodies" within the relevant main article unless it is particularly long and unwieldy.

However, I've not (yet) nominated them for deletion, in the hope that editors of this article might first take the opportunity to comment and perhaps improve this spread of articles. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The big thing is that they are no longer Superfasts' ships, but have passed on to a different owner. From the point of view that they are now owned by Tallink it seemed prudent to me that they should have separate articles as having a section of Superfast Ferries article dealing with ships that belong to a different company with little or no relation to S-fast would be somewhat impractical. Additionally, whilst I admit these articles are of interest only to a small group of people, they do contain information otherwise unavailable at Wikipedia. And of course, any future information pertaining to those ships will be in no way related to Superfast, which is actually already true to all events after March 2006. - Kjet 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean about how the Tallink info would be out of place in the Superfast article. But perhaps it should be in the Tallink article... The fact that something is "otherwise unavailable at Wikipedia" doesn't in itself make it worthy to include that info. Is there a particular reason why these ships are particularly notable individual ships? (I accept that there may very well be, I just don't think it's clear yet :-) )

Many important naval vessels, for example, are only included as a class of vessels, not as individual ones, unless the individual ship did something particularly noteworthy in a war for example. What do you think of the idea of having one article for these three ships, and covering the history of the transition in there? – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As a ferry enthustiast I'd say that all ferries are "notable", ^_~ but admittedly as individual ships these aren't particularly notable (although, as a class of ships they did force the withdrawal of GTS Finnjet, not a small feat, and they were the first cruiseferries to be successfully operated in the Baltic by a company not based in one of the Baltic sea countries). I'd be game for a common article on all three ships - or possibly a joint article for VII & VIII, but an individual article for IX as it's service history and technical specifications are somewhat different from the other two.

As a general note I'm not sure how well the naval analogy can be applied to commercially operated ships - even when there's an actual class of similar ships, they usually end up being sold to entirely different companies, sailing in different parts of the globe and even rebuilt into completely different forms (case point: M/S Svea Corona and M/S Wasa Queen - the third sister's history is equally different). Obviously these points do not apply to the Superfast ships (yet). - Kjet 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Superfast Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080921082932/http://www.norfolkline.com:80/EN/About/News/Rosyth_Zeebrugge/ to http://www.norfolkline.com/EN/About/News/Rosyth_Zeebrugge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)