Talk:SS Fort Stikine

Reference cols
- re your setting the colwidth to 30em. I specifically chose two cols for this article given the number of refs and that it looks much neater. 30em forces the references back to a single column on my screen (1280x1024px). It's a bit like ENGVAR, and I think that it should not be changed from one to another at an editors whim. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mjroots, what about using a different size that does produce two columns for you? As explained in the template documentation, the fixed number of columns approach is deprecated, as the colwidth option produces better results for more people. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That means reducing by three sizes. Not an option. 21em is the largest that gives me 2 cols. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "three sizes". 21em would be fine if you'd like to make that change, but I'm curious about what's going on with your setup to have that result - I still get two columns with only half my (laptop) screen, and three at fullscreen. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * CTRL & minus x3, that's what. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ships lost or severely damaged
I think this entire section should be moved to Bombay Explosion (1944).--agr (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What would replace it if it were moved? That section illustrates the damage to shipping that was caused by the explosion. There's no harm in copying the table over to that article, which is somewhat lacking as to the loss of shipping. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a good idea to have the table in two places as they could get out of sync if changes are made. Bombay Explosion (1944) should be the main article discussing the explosion. A paragraph here summarizing the damage to shipping would suffice.--agr (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bombay Explosion article does discuss the explosion. This ship article discusses the ships. Which is how it should be IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about SS Fort Sticking, Bombay Explosion (1944) is about the disaster.--agr (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked WP:SHIPS members for input. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you copied the table over, you could always have an edit notice on both pages, basically advising of the other table and to edit them in sync. Just a thought... - the WOLF  child  12:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The table definitely belongs in Bombay Explosion (1944), indeed that article could be much improved by drawing further on the more detailed info about the explosion that has more recently been added here. On balance I agree with agr, I would not retain it in parallel here, but the last para of 'Loss' would benefit from some prose that can be drawn from the table. Davidships (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say the table belongs more in the Bombay Explosion article rather than this one. Also, if the decision is made to keep the table in this article, it seems rather odd to include Fort Stikine in it (and especially the description of the ship).
 * This is somewhat off topic, but I think the article is pretty heavy on images that are only tangentially related to the topic - yes, all those ships were escorts on convoys that included Fort Stikine, but images are not simply for decoration. A bunch of photos of generic convoy escorts add very little to understanding this vessel in particular. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - the images have been there since day 1, they meet the relevant GA criteria. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they meet the GA criteria in that they are properly licensed and have correct captions - that is not the same thing as meriting being in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ships lost or severely damaged (revisited)
The March 2016 discussion was never resolved. (I am not surprised.) Simple stated this article is about SS Fort Stikine, not Bombay Explosion (1944). The casualties of the explosions are not important to this article, the fact that SS Fort Stikine was a casuality is. The entire section should be removed since it is in Bombay Explosion (1944). It is time consuming to keep duplicate info in sync. There is a mistake in the table, see if you can find it.
 * -- User-duck (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Excort gallery
The March 2016 discussion mentioned, " … the article is pretty heavy on images that are only tangentially related to the topic … ".

The images of the escort vessels should be removed. Image use policy states, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, …". These images do not increase the understanding of SS Fort Stikine. I would not mind if they were not so intrusive. I changed the vertical alignment to horizontal using gallery but another editor did not like it. Image use policy states, "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." (Emphasis added).
 * On my widescreen monitor:


 * ZG 8 escort is 2 paragraphs away.
 * HX 214 escort is 3 paragraphs away.
 * MKS 6 escort is 5 paragraphs away.
 * SL 129 escort is 7 paragraphs away.
 * UGS 14 escort is 8 paragraphs away.
 * GUS 25 escort is 9 paragraphs away.
 * OS 69KM escort and Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor aircraft are adjacent to the "Ships lost or severely damaged" table.
 * True, the relative location is better on my old 1280x1024 monitor, but who uses them anymore.

PS: A gallery is a gallery whether it is vertical or horizonal, independent of the method used.
 * --User-duck (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like to keep the position of the images as they are. Firstly, they were in that position when the article was promoted to GA status, and secondly, they display fine for me as they are (HP Stream, Firefox set to 170%). WP:GALLERY discourages the use of galleries where avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)