Talk:List of motor yachts by length/Archive 2

Update
From a discussion commenced in April 2018, the bottom half of the list (60m to <75m) was split off. The discussion can be found at Talk:List of motor yachts by length/Archive 1, but the split off section of the list is being retained here, (and occasionally updated) until it's disposition is determined. It is still largely incomplete, missing a majority of entries such as 'owners' and 'images', most of the parent articles are red-links, and imho, it is a dumping ground for fly-by IP users adding boats that just meet the minimum length of 60m, with the minimum amount of info and no intentions to follow up and improve their additions. As of now, the list has 149 entries. Here is a breakdown of the sizes by group;
 * 60-61m - x38
 * 62-65m - x47
 * 66-69m - x24
 * 70-74m - x40

Many of these entries are lacking info; But that said, I would like to see more discussion to help determine what to do with this list. Any info to help update these entries, or opinions on what to do with this whole section, would be helpful. Thanks - wolf  12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 122 are red-linked, need articles created,
 * 75 need owners identified,
 * 13 identified owners need articles,
 * 108 need images, and
 * 24 builders need articles

Main list
The main list is looking good, and continues to expand and improve. It currently stands at 143 entries; The majority of the entries, needing the most info, are from the more recently added entries and are mostly at lower end of the list, which is ranked by length. If anyone can add to any of the entries still in need of info, articles or images, that would be great. Thanks again - wolf  12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Adding a break-down of size groupings, for the main list, as I did with the 60-74m list above;
 * 64 boats need articles created,
 * 23 need owners identified,
 * 8 identified owners need articles,
 * 34 need images, and
 * 24 builders need articles (every builder has been identified).
 * 160-180m - x 3
 * 140-159m - x 7
 * 120-139m - x15
 * 100-119m - x21
 * 90 - 99m - x25
 * 85 - 89m - x23
 * 80 - 84m - x22
 * 75 - 79m - x27

Cheers - wolf  17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, i've been thinking about the problem of finding owners. When i'm searching for owners, a lot of the time i only find that a specific yacht is a charter yacht. Maybe it's an idea for yachts that have their onwer listed as unknown but are for charter, to fill in charter yacht instead of unknown. Also it is becoming more common for a group of people to buy a yacht. In those cases, just one owner can't be pointed out, because there are multiple. 102Legobrick 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC+1)
 * Hello again. I believe the idea of denoting yachts as available for charter came up before and was generally turned down. Since this is an encyclopaedia and there is policy with a whole list of what WP is WP:NOT, including a platform for any kind of advertising, it doesn't seem like a good fit. Anyway, the main list has 120 of 140 owners identified which is a damn good percentage (86%), and I'm sure some more of the remaining 20 will turn up sooner or later. So, I don't think we need to be too concerned about that column yet. Good to hear from you. (figuratively speaking) Cheers -  wolf  14:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unknown" owner is absurd
I've WP:BOLDly removed all the statements in the article that nobody knows who the owners are for quite a few of these yachts. The owner is not unknown, just not known to the editor who added it (for whatever reason) so saying that the owner is "unknown" is false and has no place in an encyclopedia. Someone knows who the owner is. If someone disagrees with this edit, please add a citation for each case that you assert the owner is "unknown." Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

REV Ocean
I've removed this entry for now. Wasn't sure it should've been added at the time that it was as it was still under construction. I was looking up a date for completion/launch and found that that it wasn't expected until sometime in 2022. But even then, that was at it's original intended length of 183m. Now there is a report that even before she is finished completion, her hull will be cut and extended another 18-20m. So I think it would be wise to hold off listing for now. Comments? - wolf  22:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Al Dhaferah
This ship was recently removed from the list by IP user, with the edit summary;
 * "removed entry for 'Al Dhaferah', a ROYAL NAVY OF OMAN AMBHIBIOUS LANDING SHIP ... NOT a motor yacht. Motor Yachts should also have the distinction of being owned by individuals or family/corporate entities, not by militaries (In which case every vessel of Frigate size or bigger would appear on this list"

Situations like this have come up before, and I thought I would post this to give anyone who wished to do so, to weigh-in with any comments. - wolf  03:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Page Table Broken
Can we please get the table fixed on this page? 72.239.117.142 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the table. -  wolf  03:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe is a reference to page in Wikipedia app? Table is fine on desktop page. LadyJetFuel (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the page seems fine to me as well. If this user is still experiencing issues when/if they return, they can seek assistance from the help desk. -  wolf  03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the table is broken on the Wikipedia App. Desktop seems to work fine 46.114.171.246 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * TIS screenshot DrDuu.jpg

Contribution to Motor Yachts based on length
Hello! I had made a contribution to the Motor Yachts by Length page and noticed you had removed it. I am trying to contribute accurately, and would like to explain my reasoning to you. Also, could you let me know why you deleted my contribution? It was from an accurate source. Thank you! Maritimepatrol (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First, anything to do with article content should be discussed on article talk pages (hence the move). As for your edit, you should read up on our sourcing guidelines, and what constitutes a reliable secondary source, especially for the content being edited. The source you used is known for tracking marine vessels, not for journalistic pursuits. But, also feel free to explain your reasoning, and we'll go from there. - w o lf  02:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you so much for responding. I really appreciate it. I am new to the platform and recognize I have a lot to learn. Ok, let me explain. First, I understand that the source used it known mainly for tracking vessels, but I also happen to know that the yacht is indeed owned by the group referenced. The source indicates the owner. I am just trying to fill in the blanks with correct and accurate information since none was listed for the vessel.
 * Thank you,
 * Scott Maritimepatrol (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the important things we all have to grasp about this project is the precept of verifiability, not truth - even if we personally know something to be factually correct or true, we still need to verify all content with reliable sources, (and not all sources are reliable). Just out of curiosity, why choose that particular site, to fill in that particular datum, about that particular yacht? I would like to know how that came about. Meanwhile, read up on the links provided so far in this, as well as my previous post, and read through the 'welcome' template I've added to your user talk page, and all the links it contains, there is a good deal of useful information for new users. - w o lf  03:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Length accuracy, etc
I changed the converts to display the same accuracy for all the lengths to the nearest meter. This was prompted by the existing converts rounding ALL the lengths to the nearest foot. My edit was reverted. I realize that different sources supply length using various accuracies. Personally, I doubt that any length stated is accurate to the nearest centimeter, thermal expansion alone would vary the length on the largest yachts by a centimeter for every 5°C. The first (and only) source I checked stated the yacht's length as 87.5 AND 87.58 m, not even consistent within an article. I do not believe using the high precision numbers add anything to this article.

If it is desired to display the high precision number for some of the yachts, then convert's default rounding should be used. To maintain a centimeter of accuracy, a hundredth of a foot is required and I believe the default rounding will maintain this. I freely admit that I do not understand the rounding algorithm. I have been a victim of it for 5+ years. I am certain it is more complicated than needed and that it has changed over the years. User-duck (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I will reimplement my change next week if no consensus is reached. User-duck (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If no consensus is reached, then there is no support for this change and the article can remain at quo. While some changes are indeed helpful, tweaking content just for the sake of tweaking content does not always equal improvement, for example: adding almost 3kb of needless spacing just to make the raw text look prettier is a waste of time, if not yours, than other editors. Also note that changes to wikitext that have no visisble change to the article's content is generally frowned upon. What would be helpful here is finding owners (supported by sources), finding images, and/or creating articles for yachts, owners and builders where needed. Thanks - w o lf  20:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . Over the years, I have read many Wikipedia policies, how-to's, and tip sheets. I have never come upon one that says anything like, "changes to wikitext that have no visible change to the article's content is generally frowned upon." In fact, there are tools, scripts and/or bots that do nothing but change wikitext formatting. Adding "1"s to author, editor, last, first, etc. parameters; adding hyphens, reordering parameters in cite templates. The one I really do not understand is changing "http" to "https" for "web.archive.org" archive URLs. There are some that use deprecated parameters. Others misuse parameters. Removing "url-status=live" from a cite without an archive URL does not make a visible change but it eliminates the CS1 maintenance message. Should the parameter be removed? I assume yes because of the word "maintenance" but maybe I am wrong. The maintenance category pages have a lot of verbiage about displaying the messages but does not talk about what maintenance should be done. User-duck (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized that this discussion is off-topic. My adding spaces was not reverted. A visible edit was reverted. Actually 2 separate, unrelated edits. I assume it was not worth the reverter's time to implement the referencing correction. I redid it and it was not reverted so it must have been an improvement. I will gladly remove the extra spaces if that is considered an improvement. It did help me find 2 table formatting errors that surprisingly do not have a visible effect. User-duck (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer this question: Why, in this article, shouldn't the yacht's length be reported with the same accuracy in both SI (meters) and USC (feet)? There are follow on questions but lets get the basic one answered first. User-duck (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)