Talk:Veer-class corvette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Veer-class corvette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of articles on individual member ships into the ship class[edit]

All ships of this class have their own individual articles, but most of them do not have any notability of their own except INS Prahar (K98). I propose a merger of all articles on individual members except INS Prahar (K98) into the article on the ship class. Most of the content in these articles are either one-liners or explanations of design and capability which are common to most ships in a class. There is very little written on deployments or operations that would warrant a separate article for each ship. A majority of the articles also lack references beyond the Indian Navy website. Gazoth (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes We should merge all of them into Veer-class corvette. But we do have additional information on 2 ships apart from INS Prahar (K98), mainly INS Veery (K40) and INS Nipat (K42). Some additional information like their commissioning and decommissioning captains, a couple of lines of overall service should be mentioned in Veer-class corvette "Ships of the class section". This information was released when these ships were decommissioned recently and I would expect the same for others as they are decommissioned. Maybe add this information under the table as Subheading-1 for each additional ship. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The separate articles should have been retained as they fulfill the WP:Ships definition of likely to be notable as the ships are commissioned warships and over 100 tons. I propose that the merge is undone Lyndaship (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversal - per Lyndaship - also on the grounds that this seems to be a consensus of two without any policy support. Llammakey (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversal. Individual articles are the practice for RN and USN vessels; there is no reason why these should be any different. Kablammo (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:SHIPS's standard of notability is just a convention, not policy. The individual ship articles that were merged have very little coverage beyond routine mentions. It is quite difficult to make a case for notability per WP:GNG for each individual ship. If the merge is reversed, the articles will go back to being permanent stubs as there is no verifiable information to expand them. —Gazoth (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support only partial reversal. Where there is suitable content the ship should have its own article, looking at a sample there may not really be any beyond the three mentioned by Adamgerber80 at the moment. We do not do readers any service by presenting a swathe of blue links in this article most of which lead to no further encyclopaedic information - in many cases readers get better content by a redirect to "class" as they see the broader context. Davidships (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Gazoth's point here that the 100 ton warship is a guideline not a policy. It means that yes a separate page can exist for a warship which is 100 tons but this is not a necessity. I want to ask most of the editors (who claim that this was between 2 people) here who have commented on this almost after 10 months of that discussion that were they not on these pages then? Given the fact that there is not much information on all these individual ships to begin, can somebody please elaborate a strong reason to make separate pages except there is such a guideline? There is another practical reason (less important but relevant) for there merger which is management. Currently it is a management nightmare to monitor pages and update them when there is a literally a single line about the ship and nothing beyond. I am happy to take this to a forum or have a third opinion because I don't think this will be resolved here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored all the articles as consensus for the merge no longer exists. Lyndaship (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship: Considering that you initiated the proposal, it is a conflict of interest for you to decide on its outcome when you haven't addressed any of the concerns raised by me or Adamgerber80. Can you demonstrate notability per WP:GNG on each of the artciles that you unmerged? Most of the articles are single-line stubs with the sole reference being an Indian Navy page, which won't even count per WP:GNG as it is affiliated with the subject. —Gazoth (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no required procedure to undo a merge. I initiated a discussion here to see if other editors felt as I did that the merge was wrong, clearly they do. You are free to start another merge discussion (which will likely fail) or submit the articles for AFD. Please ensure relevant projects are notified if you do Lyndaship (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship: I would highly recommend you to undo your unilateral edits and see this discussion through. Those articles were merge through a valid merge process and currently your are undoing a merge without gaining consensus. There is an existing process call WP:FORK (for your information) which is used to create new articles and that needs to be followed here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:CFORK. However that refers to forking content from an existing article to create a new one. In this case we are restoring articles whose content has been added to another article. There is no requirement to obtain consensus to undo a merge, one dissenting editor can overwrite the redirect and recreate the article but as a courtesy to the two editors who agreed to merge (without notifying interested projects) I asked for others opinions. Having considered them I have recreated the articles. As it's clear another merge proposal would be unlikely to pass if you feel they fail WP:GNG take them to AFD Lyndaship (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lyndaship: I don't think you understand how this works. The article after the merge (which was correct since no on said anything) is now one article. You need to gain consensus to fork it. This is NOT a unmerge or some other term you came up with it (and thus there is no process to unmerge). You cannot come along 11 months after an article is merged, claim you object and undo it. This is exactly why WP:FORK exists and needs consensus. You are initiator of new WP:FORK discussion and thus need to wait for it to be closed by an uninvolved editor/admin, not take actions in your own hands. I am stating for the last time, please undo your uni-lateral edits which are out of consensus. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any consensus for the change being proposed now (Sep 2018) - looks like 3:2 against (or more realistically 2½:2½). What happened 9 months ago (rather poorly, I think, without advising relevant projects or otherwise involving more editors) just gives us a starting point as it is impossible to say whether there would have been a consensus for any course, or not. As I said above, I think that we do readers a disservice by pointing them to a specific article on a ship that actually tells them less about that ship than if they stayed here. Apart from Prahar, only five of the thirteen even get a mention on this page, outside the class table. Davidships (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidships: I do agree with your viewpoint in essence and am happy to discuss and deliberate more on this. I have rollbacked the uni-lateral edits from a single editor and want to ensure that we gain consensus here on what is the best way to proceed (from the POV of a reader and increasing information conveyed) rather than following a guideline that is not binding and might not be helpful here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone of the four editors who have joined the discussion object to the merge (one partially) compared to the two who initially agreed the merge without seeking broader input by notifying relevant projects I felt the best option was to undo it and return to the status quo ante to enable a new merge proposal to be made at WP:MERGE as a contentious merge. I have asked for guidance at WP:PROJECTMERGE and will also notify the other relevant projects. Another option is that I create an article for one of the Veer class which has not had a previous article and therefore not being subject to this merge discussion and that can be put up at Contested Merges and we can accept the result there as a basis for resolving this. No possible candidate, all were included in the merge proposal Lyndaship (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the ships in Veer class had an article and all were merged except INS Prahar. If you believe that you have enough sources for an independent article on one of the ships, you should expand this article with sources to demonstrate it and then propose a split. All I've seen so far from editors supporting separate articles is just polling. I have tried to find sources for a majority of the ships and all I've found is passing mentions in news reports of naval exercises or profiles of past commanders. If you believe that you can do better, either present your sources here or expand this article with them. —Gazoth (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not objecting to the merge, I just accept that it's history (but if it does matter now, I would have suppported it at the time, with the exception of the few ships that may have had articles with worthwhile content, as happened with one anyway). Davidships (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support reversal - These are ships so they fall under WP:SHIPS's conventions. There was no consensus to merge the articles in the first place, so just with that they should be unmerged.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose reversal until significant details available to prove GNG: keep ships with only a paragraph of notes on themselves merged here; when sufficient data becomes available to properly illustrate career, split. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reversal until it can be shown that individual ships meet the GNG. The WP:SHIPS guideline is only a SNG, the GNG still needs to be met, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I suggest this article is properly expanded until it can be shown that there is enough on any individual ship to satisfy the GNG, at which point it could be split off. It may be that only one or a handful of these ships are independently notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no point in merging then splitting them back out once sufficient info becomes available to document their activities. I wouldn't have split them out to begin with without better info, but now that it's done, let them remain as stubs or whatever until somebody fills them out 'cause it's just gonna cause more work for some pagemover when that info does become available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just crystal ball stuff, and it is equally possible that there is no other encyclopaedic information to make an article on some of these ships. I don't think that GNG can be met on that basis. As I recall it (and I have to say that the frequent links to WP:SHIPS do not seem to actually lead to the relevant text), the ship guideline did not say that all ships as therein defined were notable, but they were assumed to be capable of demonstrating notability or something along those lines. If right, that is a reasonable working hypothesis, but the proof is always in the pudding: does the content actually meet GNG. Davidships (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a lot of point in restoring the articles until someone wants to develop them past stub status - whether the information is here or there doesn't so much matter until the amount of information is too much to be contained here alone. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veer-class_corvette&oldid=1213197493"