Talk:Interlake Maritime Services

Deletion request
I have removed the speedy deletion request. This company appears to carry on shipping services formerly offered by two predecessor companies with wiki articles, which have operated vessels which have their own articles. I will add links to these soon. Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading our articles correctly, it appears that Interlake Steamship Company is the parent company, and this article could be merged into that article, with a redirect from here to a section under that parent article. Kablammo (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of subsidiaries
u|Scope creep you have removed these four times now with a different rationale each time ("ce", "Restore, disruptive editng", "not linked", and "Remove spam links") while also telling me on my talk page that I added a dead link (I don't believe I did). Please can you explain your motivation? Pinging too as their edit was reverted. I believe they should be there because the information can easily be verified via the company website and via other sources. I also object to the removal of a cited source, even if the bullet points go, that source ought to be moved elsewhere in the article. NemesisAT (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no context for those links, not in a see also section. See also sections entries, usually point to something internally to Wikipedia.   scope_creep Talk  16:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all. The links weren't in a "See also" section, the section is titled "Subsidiaries" NemesisAT (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

u|Scope creep, you have removed the subsidiaries section four times in less than nine hours, and have used incorrect and deceptive edit summaries. Please look at WP:3RR. Kablammo (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As there is clear consensus here to include these subsidiaries, I will restore them if removed again. Kablammo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been here a long time, so I'm suprised to say the least that your advocating for their inclusion. Why are you saying that exactly, when you know the articles have been deleted and/or don't exist on Wikipedia in the first place, making them extraneous. They have no life in them, no context. Your merely adding extraneous article information, that doesn't have their context. Expand the main body at the body at the very least and put the references in there.   scope_creep Talk  17:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What should happen here is a merger of the content of the parent and subsidiaries into one article with appropriate subsections for past and present operations, with appropriate redirects. If any of those current subs has a notable independent history, any such independent articles for them can remain, with a summary mention in the parent's article.
 * What should not happen is edit warring and violation of Wikipedia's standards. Kablammo (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was under Afd and what shouldn't of happened is adding a reference with no context merely to win an Afd and keep that article. That was the reason it was added.   scope_creep Talk  17:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is entirely proper to add references to articles at any time. What is not proper is to delete references in order to win a claim that the subject is not notable. And doing so multiple times, even after a warning, is edit-warring. It looks like you are opposing additions which would improve the article. Can you not join in improving the article rather than damaging it in order to remove it? This is not a battlefield.  Kablammo (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The entity is worth covering but more effectively in a merged page covering the whole enterprise, including those subsidiaries. All appear to be entities of Interlake Holding Company with Interlake Maritime Services organized 12/29/2020 to "manage the new businesses." The references allude to or describe a common occurrence in the industry, corporate entities formed to operate or own individual or groups of ships. These are sometimes even intentionally obfuscated in ultimate ownership. If one digs into that subject in the post WW I and WW II eras it is quite common to find companies formed by some ultimate owner(s) named for the ship as in M.V. Monster Ship, Inc. or ships being registered under company names that are actually just entities of some larger company. By the way, on quite a few commercial aircraft one may find a little plaque stating the aircraft is owned by some holding company entirely separate from the airline one is flying. Palmeira (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I have also supported a merge as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge?
Is there still any interest in merging this page with Interlake Steamship Company? The discussion from last year seemed to have just died out without a resolution. Thoughts? - w o lf  14:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Wolf, thanks for the ping. In my opinion, a merger would be worthwhile here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)