User talk:Gwafton/Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helsingfors Skeppsdocka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lightship. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (List of vessels built at Crichton-Vulcan and Wärtsilä Turku shipyards) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of vessels built at Crichton-Vulcan and Wärtsilä Turku shipyards, Gwafton!

Wikipedia editor Chiswick Chap just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Hi, thanks for the hard work. It looks as if there's just one source (book) at the moment, and there are not yet any page references - you should provide the page for each ship. It would be much better if there were more sources, too. All the best"

To reply, leave a comment on Chiswick Chap's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on the talk page. --Gwafton (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

List of vessels built at Crichton-Vulcan and Wärtsilä Turku shipyards
Hi,

The list is from the mentioned source, pages 174−186. As far as I know, there is no other book with a complete list of vessels; this is the one and only exhaustive history book about shipbuilding in Turku and I don't think that anyone will make a new book about the same topic. So if this source won't be enough, the page is doomed to be unreliable forever.

I don't see much point at adding the reference to each line of the list, as all the projects are listed in this particular chapter, just on those 13 pages. How would that improve the article? --Gwafton (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, and yes, I can see you might well think that. I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability, but they are core to the project. The sources policy dictates that notability is established by "multiple, reliable sources" and we are on our own when deciding what "multiple" might mean, though it's generally taken to be at least three, and it's rather hard to see that it can be "exactly one". If all the information is straight from a single book, the issued of copyright rears its ugly head, too. Even quite minor subsidiary sources would be a great help; it is more than likely that von Knorring lists some dozens of sources (indeed, it would be astonishing if he hadn't), so there's an obvious place to start looking. There are sources listed in the articles on Crichton-Vulcan, Perno shipyard, and Wärtsilä Marine (which I see you have edited) including but not limited to von Knorring. You can of course also try a search on Google which finds some books including Peter C. Smith's Cruise Ships and William R. Mead's An Experience of Finland as well as decent articles at Global Security on Shipbuilding and the Finnish Navy's Builders of the Finnish Navy. In short, there are definitely other sources out there, and some of them will mention some of the ships, others will be useful for a bit of context and background to go at the top of the article and establish the all-important "notability".


 * On the question of citing each ship, be aware that Wikipedia permits, indeed invites, editors to remove any uncited materials, and the general claim "all of this is cited in the one ref at the bottom, honest" doesn't cut much ice with deletionists (of whom I'm not one). If you can't see the point of keeping that lot off, then let me point out another reason for citing each ship: what is to stop anyone adding half-a-dozen made-up ships, or ships made somewhere else, to the table, and saying "it's in the ref at the bottom, honest", and "well nothing else has a ref, why should I add any"? Far better if every existing row in the table is properly cited to the exact page on which it occurs, preferably in more than one source; then the fake records stick out like the uncited sore thumbs that they are. There, you have two good reasons apart from simple good practice to cite your work. It's worth it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm quite familiar with the most relevant parts of Wikipedia's source policy − I always use sources, preferably printed ones. Yes, there is a list of sources at the end of the book and I understood that Knorring has collected the list of the vessels directly from the order books from the shipyard archive. I have got a history book of Wärtsilä which is some 10 years older (ISBN 951-99542-0-1) and it includes an incomplete list, which seems to contain mistakes and obscurities, which Knorring has later fixed on his own list. It is easy to collect other sources for some of the vessels, such as the navy and cruise ships, but not for the rest. Besides, even if you found some data, it is highly likely that the information is taken from Knorring's book. So I could add more sources just for the sake of working to rule, but using other sources which are based on the first cited source is quite questionable at least in academic writing.


 * I have made the list slightly differently than in the book. I have dropped off the tonnage and engine output and translated it into English. Besides, according to the Finnish copyright law, the copyright to lists expire after 15 years (source: ; chapter 4.2, in Finnish). The book is published in 1995.


 * Of course someone could add/remove information to the list, but it would be visible in the version history. Thank you for your notes − I'll consider of adding the footnote to each line. That work would take some time and bananas, though. --Gwafton (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not the slightest bit interested in working to rule, but I think it serious to have an article from a single source, even if it's out of copyright. I'd say the best thing to do right away would be to add and cite a 'Background' section using some of the sources, describing how the shipyards came into being, and the naval and commercial world in which they worked. That will set the lists in context, and keep the dragons quiet too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have another source to the article and reference tags per each project. The last ones have just one note. --Gwafton (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ab Vulcan logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ab Vulcan logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on the file talk page – please delete the file. There is a new version of the logo with title Vulcan logo.png. --Gwafton (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)