Talk:GSI Mariner

Linking to list of Ship launches in 1971
As per WP:SEEALSO I feel that this should not appear in a see also section The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic as it is not particularly relevant and no such link would be made in the prose of a comprehensive article. Furthermore there are 42 other ships which have articles listed in the target page and not a single one of them are linked to it suggesting that many editors agree that individual ships should not be linked to a somewhat general list, the launch date in this instance is unsourced and uncertain and should anyone wish to see what other ships were launched in 1971 they can navigate to a more complete list by using the category 1971 ships Lyndaship (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue in the alternative that many editors don't bother with the See Also section, judging from how often it has fallen to me to remove links that, per that guideline, are already linked inline (and which, to be fair, may not have been when originally added) and are indeed indifferent to it. In fact, I recall that at Wikimania 2018 (the last such gathering I have been able to attend, alas), one presenter had looked at data from the mobile site, where the amount of clicks on each section are measurable, and found that very few readers engage with "see also" (granted, the mobile readership data cannot, and do not, tell us about editors and what they engage with). It is unreasonable to infer any consensus on editors' part from the absence of action without any statements or discussions to support those assertions. In many other subject areas I have edited articles in (true crime, film, WP:NRHP for example) we have long included links to list articles that link to the article in question. The categories, down at the very bottom of the article page on a shaded background, where most non-editing readers don't go (and many, indeed, I think, do not even know that categories exist), are not in any way an effective substitute for linking to lists in See Also, which in any event comes first as you scroll down. A category page gives only the titles of articles, requiring the reader uncertain about what the title s/he/they might be looking for to hope they guessed right before clicking; a list page can and usually does give other information that would likely be helpful to the reader (For instance, the list page under discussion here tells you what flag the ship was launched under, something we could not include in a category page. We could, admittedly, subdivide each category by nationality assuming enough ship launches exist under a particular flag to justify creating a subcategory, but that could arguably complicate such a search as the searcher/reader may not know the nationality of the ship launch. Having to look through a bunch of different nationality categories to find the right ship, or something that might be the right ship, is an experience that is not the expected norm for how the Internet works in the 2020s and could well be frustrating for readers who have been using the Internet regularly since, oh, about 1995 or so. Indeed, if we do not link to list articles from the articles listed, even in See Also, then what would be the point of having those list articles? By your logic, one could seriously nominate not only this but all "List of ships launched in YEAR" lists for deletion, as they would be unnecessary except for developmental purposes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered and illuminating reply. However, while I do agree with your comments re the usage of the See Also section and the utility of categories to the general reader I do feel that you are missing the primary point - using a see also section to link to a list of ships which just happened to have been launched in the same year is of no relevance and would not feature in a comprehensive article. To paraphrase your point with regard to consensus, It is unreasonable to infer any lack of consensus on editors part if they have already demonstrated consensus by acting similarly - 16000 plus individual ship articles and circa 100 were linked to the launch year. As you created this article are you sure you're considering the general view and not just your own? There is no extra information on the List of ships launched page which could not be included in the prose or infobox of the individual ship and no one is proposing to divide the ships launched page or categories by country. I agree that an argument could be advanced to delete all ship launched in year pages but I am not proposing that or would I support it - that's not the point being discussed here. I therefore ask you to reconsider your opposition to removing this see also entry Lyndaship (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't create many ship articles, and I'm not a member of that project, so I will say that I was following what is common practice in many other topic areas: we link all articles about individual films to "List of YEAR films" or the sublist "List of NATIONALITY films of YEAR". True, WP:SEEALSO says nothing explicitly about links to lists—they are neither explicitly recommended nor discouraged. The wording of that guideline leaves a lot of it up to editors, and has never really been amended ... I think there's a lot of editors who, if they have any opinions about See Also at all, would not really feel bad if that section ceased to exist. But there are a few of us who think it's important. I think you're missing a point about lists, that they can be expanded. There's room on that page for every ship launched in 1971 to be listed. There's no rule that says the list has to be fixed at its present membership. Again, you're missing my point about the list having just the most basic information—that's what readers would be looking for to find the article they're interested in without having to search blindly on names, and nothing else, from a category page. Consider that List of American films of 1990, like other lists of that type, includes information on the director, cast, studio, release date, and any notes about awards won—all information that's usually also in a film's infobox. But I don't imagine anyone would argue that it should be only in those infoboxes. Most of your response simply reiterates what you originally said without, to me, taking into account my points. That's fine ... you have the right to be convinced of the rightness of your views, and not reconsider them. I think we have reached the point where input from others is necessary. Perhaps we could/should continue this discussion at WT:SHIPS? Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that I have merely restated my viewpoint. I think that I addressed all the points you raised even though you did not comment on the central point I raised - that linking via see also to a general list is not relevant to the subject of the article and that link would not feature in a comprehensive article. Rather than moving and restating our points on view on WT:SHIPS I will post a note there asking other editors to comment here Lyndaship (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it would be better off over there since it's really about more than just this one article. It's something with projectwide implications. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to link to the list of ship launches in 1971 as that is easily findable via Category:1971 ships at the bottom of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But as I said, a lot of non-editor readers, including people interested in ships, do not scroll down that far. They may not even know the category bar exists, and again as I said the list page offers more guidance to a reader not entirely sure of the name of whatever ship they may be looking for than the mere article titles you'd find on the category page. Frankly, this is insider-wikigeek thinking ... "It works for me, so it should work for everyone else and I'd prefer it not be done because if it is it creates a disturbance in the Force". I mean, why have these list articles at all if you're not going to link to them from the articles listed, if you're essentially saying categories do everything necessary? Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I didn't realise that. Sometimes I forget that I was new to Wikipedia once (a long, long time ago) and didn't know how it all worked. Maybe one way around this would be to link the the list of ship launches from the infobox, where the launch date is. This is something probably best thrashed out at WP level through a RFC. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
I worked on the GSI Mariner from 1974 to 1989 or 1990 ,I am not sure of the last date, as I worked on various GSI ships. The Mariner was launched in 1972, though I do believe construction started in 1971. It was originally launched as a 99 foot ship, to meet some regulation. At that time it was claimed it could do 11 knots, it was pretty light, but snub nosed, so I don't guarantee it. The ship was shipped to Hay river in pieces, and the bow was finally added in 1974. That made the ship either 124.5 feet long or 119.5 feet long, to meet some other restriction. This reduced it's top speed to 8 knots. It's gross weight was 308, not 309, after adding the bow. 207.148.176.105 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's interesting; I would like some better sourcing as for right now we can only go with the reliable sources we used we can verify. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)