Talk:Sheringham Lifeboat Station

Infobox
Wouldn't Template:Infobox Organization be a better choice, since the article can cover the history of lifeboats at Sheringham.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Organization
Have put the suggested Infobox here to gage opinion of it. Personally I like some elements of it but think it lacks a location map and there is nowhere to put information about the station i.e. when it opened. But then the infobox on the page has no information about the Chairman.Stavros1 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While the RNLI itself is an organisation, individual stations have many attributes that are not accommodated by the organisation infobox. It would be best to stick with the lifeboat station infobox but add to it the fields from organisation that appear to be useful.


 * My list of extras would include:


 * On a related note, having the large RNLI flag in the infobox adds no value whatsoever and makes the box unnecessarily tall. How about putting a small flag to the left of the station name (on the top, title line) similar to the NavBox?

-Arb. (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Info Box Sheringham Lifeboat station
Hi Arbus Driver

I agree with you completely and as it happens I tried several times to incorporate the information that you have suggested but I corrupted the box. I don’t know what I was doing wrong!, Do you think that if you have a minute you could have ago at creating the box?, I certainly think it would enhance the page. It could also replace the box on the Great Yarmouth and Gorleston lifeboat station page.  stavros1  ♣  12:05 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Article purpose and suggestions
Having had a bit of a think, I would like to clarify something. Is this article covering the Lifeboat station (as in the physical construction) or the organization that over the years has saved people from the sea? If I talk about "Cromer lifeboat" I could be talking of the organization or a specific lifeboat, wheras if I say Cromer lifeboat station the assumption could be the organization or the boathouse at the end of the pier. At the moment the intro to this article reads as if we are just talking about the physical boathouse.

I suggest that the intro is rewritten to cover the station as a life-saving organization/entity and the particulars of the boathouse site moved further down - it can then retain its own infobox while an organizational one covers the Sheringham lifeboat as a whole. also as necessary the boats can have their own ship infoboxes if needed. This avoids us trying to force an infobox to carry data its not designed for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your thinking here, but is the title Sheringham Lifeboat Station the Organisation. I think it depends on what context you view the word station as. Is the station were a lifeboat is located or is it the building it physically stored in ready for use. In the case of a lifeboat both explanations are valid. Maybe the title of the page should be re-directed to Sheringham Lifeboat Organizations, seeing that there has been a private and an RMLI service. I am undecided here!  stavros1  ♣  18:50 16 January 2009 (UTC).

The article is correctly named (as are its siblings). It is about the station in the broadest sense of the word: buildings, boats, crew and organisation; in that order of importance. As we have separate articles for the more important boats and personnel it makes sense for the station articles to focus on the buildings, mention the boats and highlight notable crew; all three of these are likely to be of interest to a wide audience. The local RNLI organisation is (in my opinion) of only parochial interest. Why would a general audience have the slightest interest in who its chairman is? If we mention it at all it should have a small section towards the end of the article. It should certainly not be driving the content of the article or the infobox though there is no harm in including some aspects of organisation within a "Lifeboat station" specific infobox. I'll have a go at that when I get chance (per the request above).

Oh and Graham, once a discussion has been opened it is generally considered courteous to wait until a consensus has been reached before changing major items in an article eg the infobox it uses. What's the rush?

-Arb. (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Sheringham lifeboat station now looks a real mess maybe the infobox edits should be undone? --palmiped | Talk  20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I tend to agree with --palmiped | Talk , the article has become a bit of a mess and would be better in its original form.   stavros1  ♣  21:11 16 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Ha! While you two were busy commenting here I was busy reverting the worst of the mess (smile) -Arb. (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheringham lifeboat station
Hi, Graemeleggett

I don’t see why you removed the nav-box for the different classes of lifeboat. It is relevant to a lifeboat station as different classes of lifeboat have been stationed there. A reader may wish to find out more about a certain lifeboat and the nav box will help in doing further research.  stavros1  ♣  13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (copied from my talk) Nav boxes are used for navigating across linked articles. Sheringham lifeboat station is not linked in that navbox. Have a look at HMS Rothesay (F107) for a similar case. I suggest adding the appropriate lifeboat classes as wikilinks to the boats and then fform there it readers can flow into the types of RNLI lifeboat.
 * (additional) a link to a list of lifeboat types can go under "see also" - I've added the one for historic lifeboat classes (article title needs work and could be merged into a article/list of all (past and present) classes)GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheringham lifeboat station
Hello Palmiped

I see that you have moved the images on this page from the left to the right as per Wikipedia guidelines. I think the page still looks a mess with the large white areas with no text that this has created. It was a mess before when User talk:Arbus Driver moved them from the gallery that I created, into the text. Personally I think the page would look better with a gallery within the relevant section of the text. What do you think?. .  stavros1  ♣  20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (Posted on the Talk page Also)

Agreed. I was trying to place them alongside the text that talks about their subjects but there is not really enough text for this to work. Unless the text is expected to grow a gallery might be best. Preferable to keep them with the History section though. -Arb. (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable rescues of Augusta
A table of this size and on this subject seems out of place in an article about a Station. Yet it is all interesting stuff. Perhaps its appearance is telling us that there is sufficient information about Augusta to warrant a separate article about her? -Arb. (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The station covers all its history including rescue activities just as an RAF station is not just about the buildings but the units that were active there. Actually, as I think on it, you could consider a lifeboat station to be analagous to an RAF squadron. The table is a bit bloated by including separate rows for years. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Single article’s
I certainly have enough information gathered now to put together a single article’s on the Augusta, Henry Ramey Upcher and J C Madge the latter is actually a certificated member of the National Register of Historic Vessels  certificate No 1763. I like some consensus here before articles are started as the forum here has criticised single articles on lifeboats in the past, and I don’t want to waste time putting work into a page only to have an Afd placed on it.  stavros1  ♣  10:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the last comment I saw on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships was one of the chief complainers changing his mind and being complementary about the articles. Be that as it may, if you put into this article a service table for every boat it is going to be very long and have too much of the wrong kind of detail (see next paragraph); so I'd vote for individual articles.


 * Turning to Graham's point about rescues being part of a station's history, it seems to me that a Station article should contain a summary of some sort but not lists of every single rescue by every single lifeboat. How about stating the total number of rescues (services) and lives saved from the station from its founding to a recent, specified date?


 * -Arb. (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd start with adding the Madge complete with the ship infobox and approriate cites and see how it stacks up. If there is indeed enough material we can justify spining off Madge to its own article and leaving a summary behind. The info would also help the appropriate lifeboat class article. Then the others can follow. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pruning Augusta
Given the new article (good job there by the way), should not the Augusta section here be pruned to the bare minimum? A simple summary giving dates in and out of service, length of service, number of lives saved & any other noteworthy factoids would seem to be quite sufficient. -Arb. (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)