Talk:Royal William: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:25, 4 October 2024

Untitled

"Almost continuously"? And why does Savannah get cred for 1st transatlantic steam crossing, not RW? (For Molson, I cite the Canadian Ency.) Trekphiler 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split

As heartwarming it is to see two such vastly different subjects coexist peacefully, it's also rather absurd :D The article is in the category steamships, and the only reference cited is a website on roses. Arndisdunja 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us an endless cycle of needless formal changes that bring absolutely nothing in terms of content while wasting contributor's time that for one can spend much better: neither section is larger then a stub on its own, nor likely to become worthy of a separate page (then I could of course agree to a review), so they would sooner or later both be challenged as 'too small'. The only alternative (but not my choice) would be turning in into a disambiguation page- after the two sections had been incorporated into other articles, or we end up with three pages were one is more then enough. Fastifex 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as if this were a paper encyclopedia, and that we cannot afford the waste of having three pages for these two subjects. If the atricles are too short to stand on their own, then they could perhaps be merged into other articles that are more relevant (I know nothing of either steamboats nor roses, so I won't make a suggestion). As it is, these subjects won't be any more or less "stubby" in two articles than they are in one. Arndisdunja 16:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only all wikipedians would realize like both of us (I agree there, in essence) that a short page can be a valid entry, as by the way many paper encyclopaedias prove, I'ld see no need to object to a disambiguated split. Unfortunately I must think of kafkaiesque experiences where formalistic wiki-sticklers did challenge on that sole, pointless ground, and even caused perfectly valid information to be thus deleted- and that's a price I won't consider paying for any aspect of presentation. I believe -my experiences may of course by accidentally misleading- that steamships (naval types keelhaul you for calling a ship boat, by the way- not that I care) are generally just on a vast list without details or a single page, often as a section added to one or more totally unrelated subjects. I know more about roses, but in terms of wiki-pages there is almost nothing, actually a scandalous void (I might tackle part of that some day, but must give priority to my history-related core business till further notice), so I don't see a valid option there either. Fastifex 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ship actually appears to be historically notable, probably deserves an article of its own. Let's try it this way. Kaisershatner 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|
+{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
+}}
+==Untitled==
 "Almost continuously"? And why does ''[[Savannah]]'' get cred for 1st transatlantic steam crossing, not ''RW''? (For Molson, I cite the Canadian Ency.)  [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 5: / Line 9: @@
 :Please spare us an endless cycle of needless formal changes that bring absolutely nothing in terms of content while wasting contributor's time that  for one can spend much better: neither section is larger then a stub on its own, nor likely to become worthy of a separate page (then I could of course agree to a review), so they would sooner or later both be challenged as 'too small'. The only alternative (but not my choice) would be turning in into a disambiguation page- after the two sections had been incorporated into other articles, or we end up with three pages were one is more then enough. [[User:Fastifex|Fastifex]] 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 ::You speak as if this were a paper encyclopedia, and that we cannot afford the waste of having three pages for these two subjects. If the atricles are too short to stand on their own, then they could perhaps be merged into other articles that are more relevant (I know nothing of either steamboats nor roses, so I won't make a suggestion). As it is, these subjects won't be any more or less "stubby" in two articles than they are in one. [[User:Arndisdunja|Arndisdunja]] 16:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
+If only all wikipedians would realize like both of us (I agree there, in essence) that a short page can be a valid entry, as by the way many paper encyclopaedias prove, I'ld see no need to object to a disambiguated split. Unfortunately I must think of kafkaiesque experiences where formalistic wiki-sticklers did challenge on that sole, pointless ground, and even caused perfectly valid information to be thus deleted- and that's a price I won't consider paying for any aspect of presentation. I believe -my experiences may of course by accidentally misleading- that steamships (naval types keelhaul you for calling a ship boat, by the way- not that I care) are generally just on a vast list without details or a single page, often as a section added to one or more totally unrelated subjects. I know more about roses, but in terms of wiki-pages there is almost nothing, actually a scandalous void (I might tackle part of that some day, but must give priority to my history-related core business till further notice), so I don't see a valid option there either. [[User:Fastifex|Fastifex]] 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
+:The ship actually appears to be historically notable, probably deserves an article of its own.  Let's try it this way.  [[User:Kaisershatner|Kaisershatner]] 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)