User talk:Ingolfson/Archive2008B

"Complex weather implications for wind power production need no reference?"
I think we're typing past each other. The text I declare "boosterism" can be correctly summarising what is said in the two referred sources (though I wouldn't regard the scribblings of some Herald newspaper hack working from someone's PR statement as being a worthy reference, unless they had put in some effort at comparing multiple sources), so that part stands as being what it is, a report of a claim which has been made. The statement is however boosterism and it is to offset the boosterism (that is, the atmosphere generated by the article that everything is just totally wonderful) that I appended the sentence "On the other hand, a high-pressure weather zone can cover the entire country so that there is no significant wind anywhere and thus no wind generation at all, no matter how many wind turbines are installed." (which words you dislike) to provide a countervailing balance, that there can be difficulties with reliance on wind power.

Firstly, I assert merely that a high-pressure zone can cover all of NZ. This is observable by anyone who has seen a weather map, as appear in newspapers and on the TV, and has a memory capable of recalling this. It happens a few times a month at least, and even if a particular map doesn't show that, it will show that the size of weather systems is comparable to all of NZ. Without a copyright-free image of such a map, I can't provide a reference, and a token search has not found one conveniently available. I could sketch one and scan it into computer form, but this of course proves nothing. Secondly, in such a situation, I assert that there are no significant winds available over all of NZ. Yes, there can be local katabatic winds, and land/sea breezes (not shown in surface isobars anyway) but this is a detail and in NZ they are not megawatt-producing winds as compared to say Antarctica. This situation can also be seen by anyone who cares to look at weather maps showing wind speeds and again, I do not have a copyright-free example to hand to present as a reference for the confused. I could perhaps name a date and newspaper in which such a situation was depicted, but this would not be a usable reference (that people could refer to via the internet) unless the newspaper made its content available via the internet, which they don't.

Put briefly, I think that my assertion of low winds all over NZ simultaneously merely requires mention, and does not require a reference because of the obvious nature of the situation. It is not a "complex weather implication" at all, but a particularly simple one. To bash this ant with a sledgehammer, I could waste some more of my employer's time, and generate some load duration curves for wind power in NZ, using the Centralised Dataset available from the NZ Electricity Commission. It is because I have seen and produced such curves that the one-sided boosterism is particularly irksome.

As for "less coastline", ugh. NickyMcLean (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have multiple problems with your comment. Let me count the ways:


 * You call the Herald article's writer "a hack". Throwaway comment without any reason or basis except to make the ref look bad. It's a major newspaper, so its a perfectly valid ref. Even if it was based straight from a press release that would be a perfectly reasonable reference. If you want to counter it, do so without such childish arguments.
 * I was speaking informally (you know "User talk"); for what it's worth I have corresponded with a newspaper editor who admitted that indeed, reporters should not take PR handouts at face value and should seek out other viewpoints, etc. and the plain evidence is that many an article is at best a transposition of chunks from PR handouts. Thus the throwaway "hack", in a casual context. Possibly, the article in question was written by a reporter deeply conversant with the issue. The article is reasonable, but, fails to mention the need to meet peak demand, as well as total energy. A knowledgeable reporter would mention this too.


 * The reference does not claim "truth", and Wikipedia is not about truth (WP:TRUTH). If a reasonably solid reference (see above) is considered as unbalanced, the correct way is to provide contrary refs, not to make claims of boosterism.


 * "that everything is just totally wonderful" - That is your imagination what the section says, and I can't see why. The section even begins with "Wind power in New Zealand shares the difficulties..." so I see no windborne utopia being promoted here.
 * Yes, on reading the article, I see that there is mention of a negative (the need for transmission line upgrading), and this is implied in the remark in the WP part about distance between generation and use, but the last sentence as was just praises the energy production, and forgets the peak meeting, though that again could be implied with a special reading of "uneven wind strengths".


 * "On the other hand, a high-pressure weather zone can cover the entire country so that there is no significant wind anywhere and thus no wind generation at all, no matter how many wind turbines are installed." (which words you dislike)" - How about the combination in which you put them? Apart from the fact that you do not produce any reference supporting your statement that high pressure zones reduce wind energy production (yes, you have to provide references, Wikipedia should be about more than "taking somebody at his word") you also cite something - which according to your statement - often happens everywhere at once. Look at the map and check how large New Zealand is. If you want to make sweeping statements, you also need some support for them.
 * You (and anyone) need not take me at my word about pressure systems covering most of NZ, they need merely look at any weather map depicting NZ. This is a statement of the obvious. Also, water falls from the sky. Dust is blown off the Sahara. Wind creates waves on water.


 * "Secondly, in such a situation, I assert that there are no significant winds available over all of NZ." - So? If that phenomenon which you describe is so common, it will logically happen in those other countries which the reference compares NZ to as well. And the fact that wind has a certainly unreliability has already been covered in the first sentence.
 * Yes, but there are different sorts of unreliability, uncorrelated and correlated for example. And for other countries, all depends on their size, such as USA vs. Monaco. More properly, the comparison should be with the size of an interconnected network. The USA for example is poorly connected across the (rather large) country.


 * "unless the newspaper made its content available via the internet, which they don't." - So instead you say "Just believe me." I suggest that your time might be better spent searching for statements which discuss wind power in NZ in a critical light instead of trying to be so literal as to try and find a weather map which wouldn't really prove much as a reference anyway (as you correctly see). If you find reasonable refs stating issues with wind power in NZ, I have no issues with you putting them on the article, because I am not searching for "truth", only for balance and WP:REF.


 * "To bash this ant with a sledgehammer, I could waste some more of my employer's time," - Is that supposed to be an argument in your favour? This is a volunteer project. You volunteer as much work as you want. Whether you do it on your employers time is your choice, and doesn't give you any moral support in a discussion about facts, references and due weight.
 * No, the point I was alluding to is that is that providing some sort of reference for the obvious to placate a pettifogging call for references consumes limited time to very limited benefit.


 * "one-sided boosterism is particularly irksome." - There you go again. I consider the section REASONABLY BALANCED, and NOT boosterism. You want to weigh it in another direction, emphasizing negative aspects strongly, but all you say is "Believe me". Not good enough, sorry. Refs, refs, always refs. That is the entry fee at the door. THEN we talk about balance.
 * Right then. References for "reasonably", "Balanced", "emphasizing", "good", "balance", "aspects", "believe" showing how your usage is correct. "Surely obvious?" you might well reply. Not good enough, sorry. Refs, refs, always refs.


 * "As for "less coastline", ugh." - Eloquently stated. Lets go back to the first variant before you changed it, then. Technically I didn't have a reference for that anyway. Ingolfson (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Winds over oceans are stronger, because the friction between air/water is far less than air/ground(grass, shrubs, hills, trees: even with/without leaves has an effect) and so the air moves more swiftly given the same cause over the same distance. Further, it is less turbulent at sea, less likely to wrench a turbine apart with a surprise gust. Thus land-based wind turbines near an open ocean will enjoy stronger winds than those inland, though there are also local possibilities of wind funnelling along gorges and breaks in mountain chains. Accordingly, European countries much bigger than NZ such as Germany, have less of a potential resource than Britain/Ireland, except for special winds. But, no references, so I can't mention this.


 * And in a more conciliatory mood - don't see me as being unfair with you. I have had frustrating experiences with articles I cared about deleted or almost deleted because I WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND REFS. But strict(er) rules about refs are required for good Wikipedia articles. Finding some of the more elusive ones isn't easy. This one, I think you could manage if you really felt that the section needs balance. I don't feel it is unbalanced - so if you want to change it, its up to you to work within the rules. Cheers and happy(ier) editing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As per your above, I also agree that the article is reasonably balanced. I didn't want to rewrite the wind part, as that can upset the originator and I don't want that. I thought just an additional sentence... Properly, there should be a discussion of the needs of an electrical supply system, and how the various modes of generation meet some, but not others. That would clarify what I'm on about, and why talk of energy production is not sufficient, even if it is the most positive aspect of a proposal and so emphasised in the promotional presentation. This is however a larger investment in time (and potential for provocation!), and placement is also a question as there is some discussion over merging certain articles. Hi ho. NickyMcLean (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When I say 'reasonable' reference, I am talking about WP:REFS - I was saying that not every reference is equal, but that they have to pass a certain test. You keep insisting that your statements are obvious, and do not need a reference, and you feel that I am nitpicking, for whatever my implied reasons. I beg to disagree with an addition you have made without references, and thus the weight of evidence lies on you. I do not feel I am being unreasonable, because surely they are good references that discuss problems implicit in wind generation. PS: Even articles about water falling from the sky should have references on here. They have thirteen, at last count. Ingolfson (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Humm. Perhaps something like... A glance at a weather map [such as are published daily in the NZ Herald] will show that a single weather system can cover all of NZ, and in the case of a high-pressure system, there will be little wind throughout the country [the Herald has a wind map also, though it doesn't bother with the South Island] and so all wind turbines will be idle. Kind of verbose, and it doesn't contrast NZ to European countries with neighbours. And Tuesday's map in the NZ Herald showed just what I am talking about. But it is copyright. The article on rain is interesting, but, it gives no reference for its assertion "[rain] forms when separate drops of water fall to the Earth from clouds" nor for the other statements in its lead paragraph even for the possibly surprising point that rain can evaporate before it reaches the ground. Which I have observed myself, but that doesn't count. Later on, specific details are referenced. NickyMcLean (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "surprising point that rain can evaporate before it reaches the ground. Which I have observed myself, but that doesn't count." - No, it doesn't. WP:Original research. Wikipedia articles need refs, and the arguments you make are only showing that rain needs more refs, not less. I am tiring on wasting my time on this. Wikipedia won't fail just because we disagree. Ingolfson (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Winter waterspout
Hi,

You have participate to the article called Winter waterspout. Althought they are very rare, exept for the season they physically are produce the same way as any waterspout : strong low level instability and weak wind shear. So I have proposed to merge that article into a section a section of waterspout. Could you comment at Talk:Waterspout.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare
Hello!

You recently made a few additions/changes to the Horses in warfare article. Thank you for these changes, and your help on the way to keeping this article at GA status! One comment - could you please return to the article and add page numbers to the citations for the two book references you added? This is becoming a requirement for GA/FA status, and as you are the one with the books, it would be helpful for you to add the numbers. You will notice that I have already reformatted your reference additions so that they are in sync with the rest of the references in the article. To add page numbers, all you need to do is go to the short ref (the in-line one), and where I now have "Needs Page Numbers", add ", p. (or pp. for multiple pages) xxx (or xxx-xx3)".

If you have any questions, please let me know. Like I said, your addition was very helpful (unlike many drive by edits!) and my comment is very minor. We would love to have your help in improving this article even more! Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That WAS my idea of a drive-by edit! ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I may have done a little more this time than just add a page number ;-) I have also used a more extensive cite format - while I haven't been very good at using this, we really should. PS: The article is sadly becoming a wee bit large - maybe we should move more parts out... Ingolfson (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my answer (as well as another WP:Equine member's) to your citation question on my talk page. As far as the article becoming large: this is an ongoing question that we are working on.  At the moment, we would like to get all of the referencing done and fact tags removed.  Then, we will work on removing any redundant information.  After this is all done, we will take another look at the article to see if there are any sections that could be split out into their own article, or moved into an existing article.  If you have suggestions for specific areas to move out, please post them on the article's talk page.  Thank you for all of your help so far! Dana boomer (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

reference
thanks for letting me know, ive added it back in Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Auckland move
I was doing a history merge to fix a cut and paste move from Auckland, New Zealand to Auckland in May 2004. I also had to delete some of the edits at Auckland to make the page history clean. To make sure that readers could see the Auckland article the whole time, I had to move Auckland to Auckland/temp. I also made a mistake half way through the process, and that took a lot of time to fix. Graham 87 05:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hospital
Well that material contradicts the very respectable Encyclopedia Britannica. And that material might not necessarily be true as the ISBN or the quotes are really not available. Not to mention that the material I removed was kinda NPOV and that spoils he whole 'neutrality' thing ('there are historians who strictly dispute the claim that Ashoka built any hospitals at all'— who are these people and who sees them and why don't they get heard on Britannica? who writes 'ancient Asia' and why am I hearing from 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments'?).

I won't bet that the material is undisputed. Anyways, the quote I provided was better than the material given and hence renders the material useless. Piercey & Scarborough are better than 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments' on any given day.

Regards, JSR (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the above arguments don't really count - one contradictory reference does not make another useless, and citing the fact that some historians strictly dispute other's findings is not POV. Calling a research article "The Nurses Should be able to Sing and Play Instruments" doesn't make the reference untrustworthy, and the Britannica is not the end of all argument (see also my points below on having both sides in a dispute, Wikipedia is not about providing THE definitve one answer). Ingolfson (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments':


 * One of those '101 textbooks' Finger, Stanley (2001). Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations Into Brain Function. US: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195146948.  states that one of the edicts of Ashoka (272 - 231 BCE) reads: "Everywhere King Piyadasi (Asoka) erected two kinds of hospitals, hospitals for people and hospitals for animals. Where there were no healing herbs for people and animals, he ordered that they be bought and planted."


 * I have replaced the singularly poor research of 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments' by Piercey & Scarborough (2008).


 * JSR (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi JSR - you removed material without giving a reason and even without replacing it with contrary information. As I noted in the edit summary - please provide counter-references and discuss in-article - it is not your call to say which are good references and which aren't (a historical dispute needs to be included, not whitewashed).


 * Also, you deleted a paragraph which wasn't even about Ashoka, and then you deleted the Ashoka claim even though right in there there was already a referenced statement that calls the Ashoka claims a historical mistake. That is how Wikipedia works - not by deleting something, even though many might consider it untruth (or even though it may actually be wrong!). Wikipedia is not about truth - Wikipedia is about giving an account of the information that is available. And that requires both the Ashoka claim to be made, and the counter-arguments to be included as well - rather than removing part of the discussion. Regards Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I accidentially had you on the OTHER side of the argument. You ARE saying Asoka built hospitals. But actually, that doesn't change much at all. Both sides of the argument still deserve to be heard, and including three lines of historical criticism from a university research paper are certainly not undue weight. Ingolfson (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I understand that we only need to have one mention of 'hospital w.r.t. early south Asia'. If there is going to be that one mention then either Piercey & Scarborough or Stanley Finger are the most reliable versions at hand. Personally I think that even using both Piercey & Scarborough and Stanley Finger in one article to cover 'hospital w.r.t. early south Asia' is undue weight. One source on 'hospital w.r.t. early south Asia' is good enough since they're both detailed.

Now adding anything else is just undue weightage. Having given my reasoning, do I have your go-ahead to remove the other mention which says the same thing and the undue weightage of 'The Nurses should be able to Sing and Play Instruments'? (which may have been nessesary prior to the introduction of Piercey & Scarborough) A research paper that seems to have placed and Oxford University Press books and the Encyclopedia Britannica under the label of 'history 101' is really not credible. We should also remove 'Ancient Asia' heading. All the best :-)

JSR (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, no. You do not seem to get my point. You want to remove this - apparently because it irks your sensibilities and also because you apparently feel that saying something contrary to what you consider good sources should not be on Wikipedia? Your P&B section says Ashoka built hospitals. Wujastyk (stop saying the name of his paper if it irks you) says: "No, that is a mistake made by other historians. Ashoka didn't build any hospitals." If you remove this, you would ignore (worse, now that you know it, falsify) the fact that there is obviously a historian dispute here.


 * As for undue weight (Wujastyk might just be a drunk art student trying his hand a writing a medical history paper, after all), well, Wujastyk is "Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow, Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL". Now I don't claim that this told me jack squat ten minutes ago, but it checks out, he is listed on the staff website of a major university, jadada jadda jadda.... - any criteria for a reasonable reference is clearly given.


 * So, in short - no, you do not have my agreement to remove this. If you feel there is duplication, please go ahead and combine sections, but do not remove the references and the disagreement spelled out here, please. Regards, Ingolfson (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved this discussion onto the Talk:Hospital page - should really be held there. Regards Ingolfson (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good Move (pun intended) :-) JSR (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Palettes in non-java script edit window
I completely agree with your comments about the new drop-down menu. I just find the cons outweigh the pros for the type of editing I tend to do on WP. I don't see any comments on your talk page and was wondering if you received any response to your query? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, but they made the wiki markup palette the default one eventually, and added a few things that were initially missing, so the issue isn't nearly as big anymore. Ingolfson (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stupid Evil Bastard
A tag has been placed on Stupid Evil Bastard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scapler (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in NZ are you from?
We're having a meetup in Auckland, though I'm not sure what part of NZ you live in. Maybe you could add a more specific category and/or userbox? Richard001 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Skytower from mt eden.JPG
Image:Skytower from mt eden.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Sky Tower from Mt Eden.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Waitakere City
Hey mate, just wanted to clarify the situation regarding football in Waitakere. I've removed your addition of adding Waitakere City to the list of local sports team, on account of it being one of several Northern League clubs based in the city - others include Waitemata, West Auckland etc. Rather than list them all, I've added the phrase "as well several clubs competing in the regional [[Northern League (New Zealand)|Northern League][ competition."

I also should point out that there no longer is a competition with the name of "National Soccer League" - it was replaced with the NZFC in 2004, in which Waitakere United compete. Waitakere City currently compete in the Northern League.

Hope this clarifies things, give me a yell if you have any questions :) Gialloneri (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Police officers killed
Hi Ingolfson, thanks for the compliment on that article. Absolutely right, 28 and 16 too many already. XLerate (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bouncer (doorman)
Think we should nom again? Maybe we'll get nicer judges this time around? Oh, The Cake is a Lie = formerly Gamer Junkie :) The Cake is a Lie  T /  C


 * Lol. Assume the party escort position! Ingolfson (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, let's nom, but I am very busy, so maybe we can do it the weekend, after some more work? Or were you thinking of nominating as is, and hoping? Ingolfson (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll nom sometime tomorrow. [WHISPERING] Maybe I'll "lose" that one cite tag before I do, though. BTW, their will be cake and grief counselling after the nomination process! The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom'd. Let's see what happens... The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They got around to reviewing. The reveiwer has made some suggestions for additions and even provided us with the links and references. All we have to do is write it in, I guess. Just thought I'd let you know so you can skim through the review suggestions and add your two cents if you like. The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cake's fine. That's what everybody calls me on TF2, so pretty used to it now. I got hit with a shit storm of work myself, but I'm gonna try to get something added today or tomorrow or the GA will be failed due to lack of effort :( Cheers. The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 01:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They took weeks to review it in the first place, why should it fail for lack of effort after a few days? Is that some rule? Anyway, I have made a good go already, taken care of three things. Ingolfson (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

'Doc' Holiday
I know what you mean. I've never heard of him, but people keep adding him in. He'll be back again in a couple months, I bet... The Cake is a Lie T /  C 06:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume he adds himself. It seems always connnected to his book. Ingolfson (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Likely. I'm thinking it's the same with this Jax Desmond guy. Never heard of him or his company. Website looks kind of ridiculous, too. I mean "Agent Access" and "Client Access" over an American flag? C'mon. Reminds of Team America. The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 08:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

check ref Devonport
I tried to correct a ref in Devonport. It dates back to nov. 2007! Could you please check if I made it right. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Electricity company info
Hi. Can you please explain why you moved the table of electricity company info from Electricity sector in New Zealand to New Zealand Electricity Market? IMHO the data seems more applicable to the electricity sector article, as it is much wider than just the electricity market. Also, looking at both these articles, it would probably improve clarity to distinguish between the market (wholesale trading run by EC, M-Co, et al) and the electricity industry (which also covers generation, transmission, distribution and retailing). What do you think? --Pakaraki (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pakaraki - I thought that it makes more sense in New Zealand Electricity market because you spent a lot of effort adding information that is more market- than energy-centric (such as customer numbers). The table also focuses mostly on the companies, not on the energy itself, so again, that seemed to me more appropriate to the other article.


 * If you feel strongly otherwise, I don't have anything against you adding it back into the Electricity sector article. If you do so, please leave it in the other article too, and maybe move it into the market/generation companies section of the "Electricity sector" article. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ships by type
You are definitely right stating "by type" category misses out on tons of ships that should be accessible from there. In my opinion however category:ships has to divide only between yachts and merchant ships. You earn money with a ship, she is used for service or you use her for pleasure. So I think category merchant ships is too wide for proper use. As I am working on the complete database of Commons ships to bring as much ships as possible under IMO number (and in the meantime categorise them by alphabet) I suggest to fade out merchant ships and bring them under type. I can do that working on the IMO numbers. What's your opinion about that? --stunteltje@hccnet.nl (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to think about that, as I am unsure what I think about phasing "merchant ships" out as a cat. Won't have the peace of mind until after Xmas. If I don't get back to you, remind me again then. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)