Talk:A (sailing yacht)

Notifying of the multiple references
It seems the article has multiple citations derived from a single source- and mentioned three(or four) times at the list of references.

FindMeLost (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahoy, I would give it some time before jumping on specific issues as it takes some days to get an article to higher standards. Some google searches should lead you to the many sources available for this topic. Thank you. Cutter12 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There are numerous original articles with licensed Starck photos, including The Times, Daily Mail, Boat International and SuperYachtTimes from May to August 2015, that called it Sailing Yacht A and discussed the yacht. It is enough for an accurate reference an clearly shows the name is S/Y A. None of them mention anything like White Pearl. It is simply wrong to call an article such a name or call it two names while the latter is obviously wrong/rumour/confusion or even if it was a technical name used by someone working on it. signed: user:Sasha-int) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well for the moment it is almost all amateur and drone photography, Starck network renderings and owner's representive Diederik Kloosterman giving shipyard access in 2014 to BIM editor-in-chief Amanda McCracken. HDW is military so complete info lockdown is expected, but more data may finally be released after delivery.
 * Following sea trials in Danish waters, the vessel returned on October 16th with a mizzen covered in load sensors and 10 metre spar plates that could potentially cover up a carbonfiber crack ; The vessel's AIS is not pinging, the vessel is not sailed and the shipyard is again in complete information lockdown...We just have to wait. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

build cost
What the magazine reports as the cost of the vessel is certainly the right number of figures, but it really is anybody's guess and could be well off. It is not encyclopaedic *at all* !. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be deleted because it predates and prelinks the page purported to replace it, simply because the contributor would like to wash out the project name (White Pearl) of an undergoing project. Since this project is still in trials and is not yet delivered or named (christened in maritime terms), the currently registered name (A, German flag, registered in Kiel) may yet (indeed, will) change name and flagstate again in the future so there is no valid reason for deleting the project name and the only shipyard source referring to the project. The contents of the existing page (this one) should be discussed in the talk page, amended and/or renamed, not deleted. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reverting the link from the list of large sailing yachts until this matter is resolved. Thank you for contributing signed:Donan Raven (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This doesn't remotely qualify for speedy deletion but nevertheless we shouldn't have two pages on the same yacht and one will have to be merged into the other. Which way round should be decided through discussion though.  Hut 8.5  22:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose to add the extra information (Starck, engine ratings) that is absent from this article from the other article and tag that one for merger into this one. I will add a Commons category link to retain access to the other article's photograph (yet to be categorised). While the article situation is not a problem at present, it should be monitored after the project is delivered and the vessel is finally christened in 2016 signed:Donan Raven (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * done. Please review so Sailing Yacht A can be used as a redirect. signed:Donan Raven (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wash out? I am for accuracy, and this is obvious that the yacht's name is Sailing Yacht A, not White Pearl which sounds like a rumour or someone's technical way to call it something before it got the actual name A. All world media call it S/Y A! Just check the links. I don't understand what this conversation is about at all. It was already named Sailing Yacht A in August and May and called like this in all magazines and newspapers - online and print. Just read it and it becomes very clear (all mainstream and industry media), see below. What other reference do you need? If you want to promote rumours and false facts, then of course you can call it whatever name you like. If any redirection should take place, it is from "White Pearl" to Sailing Yacht A. This is simply incorrect to assign an untrue name or someone's wish to someone's yacht while all world media call it S/Y A. And as for WP page, you can't have a page with the name which is untrue, so it should be deleted.

http://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/exclusive-pushing-the-boundaries-of-technology-sailing-yacht-a--27613 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3212897/The-superyacht-masts-taller-BIG-BEN-sails-size-football-field-Russian-billionaire-designs-luxury-vessel-set-begin-sea-trials-later-year.html http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/sport/sailing-yacht-a-super-yacht-andrey-melnichenko/ http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/33/article/id/14383/ http://theyachtphoto.com/sya.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha-int (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The only name you can find in reliable sources (not tabloids or rumours) is Sailing Yacht A
If anyone cares for accuracy and I am all up for accuracy, this is obvious that the yacht's name is Sailing Yacht A, not White Pearl! Just check this and make your own judgement! If you find one reference to WP (which is obvious an enthusiasts rumour or a technical name of the shipyard who do not name the yacht, it is up to whoever's yacht it is! If you call your cat Kitty and a caretaker calls it John, it does't become John! Obviously, it was already named Sailing Yacht A if it's called like this in all magazines and newspapers - online and print. I am into yachts and it is important that things are called right. http://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/exclusive-pushing-the-boundaries-of-technology-sailing-yacht-a--27613 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3212897/The-superyacht-masts-taller-BIG-BEN-sails-size-football-field-Russian-billionaire-designs-luxury-vessel-set-begin-sea-trials-later-year.html http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/sport/sailing-yacht-a-super-yacht-andrey-melnichenko/ http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/33/article/id/14383/ http://theyachtphoto.com/sya.htm What other reference do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha-int (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't just roll back claiming that the facts are inaccurate: Prove it by disproving the existing sources supplied by replacing them by *even more reliable* sources, if you can. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 06:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * regarding the template delivered/completed, the two sources 12 are specific: the vessel is delivered and not completed (as it is continuing fitout and seatrials under the responsability of the owner's team) - edit revoked.
 * regarding the size of the vessel as classed as a private yacht for leisure, none has ever matched her size. If it were not the case please supply a source that would contradict this - edit revoked
 * regarding the impounding in Gibraltar, you might wish to hush the matter, but you would have to give a valid reason - edit revoked
 * regarding the teak origin inquiry that is ongoing, you might wish to hush the matter, but you would have to give a valid reason - edit revoked
 * signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 10:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re delivered/completed: if we read reputable media sources, the facts are that SY A was completed/delivered by Nobiskrug but not delivered/handed over to the owner, and as it is in sea trials and under further fit-out, it is not yet delivered as such. It is a matter of language and factual accuracy. Boat International which is a very reputable source (in the most recent article - the link I provided in the article) refers to 'completed'. It is not in the hands of the owner's team but at Navantia shipyard undergoing the fitout, you read carefully.
 * no, both the press release and the press report use the word delivery. As in all crews, the owner's team is continuing fitout, sea trials in a private capacity.
 * It is a public encyclopaedia: it is not encyclopaedic to feature tabloid or yellow press speculative reports as factual points of reference which should be objective. The issues you refer to are either minor/transient and do not form essential narrative about the subject as part of its story or specifications (the Gibraltar incident, it is not something which is related to SY A) or speculative (teak: it is more like a hearsay, unproven claim or speculation by an unknown environmental organisation, it is not proven and most or all superyachts are fitted with Burmese teak literally, fyi)
 * When an independant watchdog (not to mention's EIA's flawless reputation) and a public prosecutor make statements that the the shipyard did not contest (hearsay?) all declaring a prosecutable lack of due diligence, in the particular case of Michael Ray Kimble's company Teak Solutions and from the whole wood supply chain industry with regards to lack of knowledge on commercial Burmese logging origins, *every* local publisher, as well as Die Welt, ran the same uncontrovertible story.
 * You do not own this article and cannot unedit or "hush" all others edits according to your liking. Think of objectivity for a second please and let others contribute to factual accuracy making Wikipedia a teamwork place, not a personal website! Thanks! :)
 * You are right, none of us owns any articles. If the edits that I have provided lack precision, you are welcome to add necessary clarification, but you are not welcome to delete them unless they are proven false by other sources. Until we find consensus here in the talk page, it is recommended to stop counterediting the article. Please agree to this at least. Thanks for contributing.
 * signed:Sasha Int (talk, contribs) 01:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 10:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your contributions. Let us indeed try to find a compromise. I agree it is better to edit an article with more accurate and up-to-date references rather than cancel each other's edits so I will also be grateful if you do not simply revert all changes but contribute with more accurate descriptions. I thought I'd try to clarify on each point and hope you can find this reasonable:

1) "A was delivered to her owner on February 3rd, 2017". - this is not the case, S/Y A was delivered/completed by Nobiskrug but it is not yet delivered/handed over to the owner, according to multiple media reports in mainstream and industry media. Therefore, I suggest using quotes as in the media for better accuracy. Why removing SuperYacht Times, Boat International and Murcia Today articles? Suggest to leave as "delivery by Nobiskrug" but not handed over to the owner yet.

2) "She exited the Baltic Sea on near-empty fuel tanks in order to clear the Drodgen Strait with minimum draught" - OK fine, considering earlier reports Drogden could have been too shallow, but that was a rumour without merit and quickly rebutted, unsure it is vital to mention that, but no objections if you insist.

3) "called at Kristiansand for export (VAT exemption) purposes" - no references but most importantly this is not definite and a rumour, all reports mentioned they did not know why it stopped there as a fact and there was no proof (it could've been but there was no evidence so this is a pure speculation) - objected.

4) "Whilst bunkering fuel in Gibraltar on February 15th, she was impounded for six days on the claims of overdue installments to the builder and its subcontractors. - Yes it was reported as something newsy, but it was also reported these were disputed costs (which is often the case with many boats in this industry and not unique to S/Y A, you don't see it in all articles about other yachts) but not "overdue instalments", cannot see why this deserves to be mentioned at all as not encyclopaedic, furthermore the reference is not accurate (some media report 3 days), in any case the article is about S/Y A not its every move - objected.

5) "She is undergoing further sea trials and final fitout at the Navantia shipyard in Cartagena". - agreed, no objections, true fact, related to S/Y A characteristics and upcoming delivery to the owner, encyclopaedic fact.

6) "Over a period of two months in 2016, the Environmental Investigation Agency tracked shipments of teak logged in Burmese forests to the German Naval Yards in Kiel, where A was being fitted out. On March 14, 2017, after the yacht had exited German waters, the public prosecutor of Kiel warranted a search of the shipyard that confirmed the presence of timber samples that violated European Union Timber Regulations. Subsequently Nobiskrug confirmed to the prosecutor that the teak had been used as decking on the yacht but did not confirm knowledge of its illegal sourcing." - this is not an article about the EIA, but about about S/Y A (all superyachts virtually are fitted with teak, it is known in the industry), and this looks like a speculation of an NGO and not proven with fact, there is no evidence only claims. Statements of a local prosecutor (where the investigation is still going on by the way) only said the teak they found at Nobiskrug was not from a plantation. EUTR (in force from March 2013) does not require it should come from a plantation but that it should be sustainably sourced. Both Teak Solutions and Nobiskrug denied and rebutted these allegations. Not encyclopaedic at all, very weak. Objected.

I hope you will find those arguments reasonable. I will slightly edit/adjust the article in line with the above well referencing it to the sources to make sure it gives an accurate narrative.

By the way, I could not find the names you mentioned above of "Michael Ray Kimble" and "Diederik Kloosterman" in any reports but rather Mike Kimble and Dirk Kloosterman. How do you know their full names? You also mention the name Vensa Bloetz in the press release though there is no such name in the link. Are you affiliated with Nobiksrug shipbuilders and promoting their story on the yacht? I am sure you will appreciate that Wikipedia is not good for one-sided statements especially when involving disputes.


 * signed:Sasha Int (talk, contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)