Talk:Geelong Star

Confusion over which vessel is which?

Concern has been raised that this article contains content and references which relate to another vessel. As a result, one editor has repeatedly blanked very significant amounts of content that they feel is not correct for this page. Although I suspect they may well have a very good point, I have asked them not to repeat this action as we are now getting into edit-warring territory, but for all editors of this article to discuss the evidence and come to a consensus over possible confusion. This is not my area of expertise, but I have found this link to Naeraberg (aka Dirk Diederik) and this link to Dirk Dirk (aka Naeraberg) which, by their sizes and ages are clearly different sized and aged vessels.

By reinstating all of the disputed/blanked content for now (which would otherwise have left a virtually blank article), I trust all editors will look at that content and sort out any possible confusion between themselves in a constructive way. Pinging @JarrahTree and Longhair: as the two most involved editors in building this page. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The content of the article has to match at of the title, or the article is worthless, if there is very little info left after removal of the Dirk Dirk info, so what? at least its factually correct info. Otherwise what? perhaps someone would like to contribute to the article by grafting in a section on the QE2, they are both ships after all! "I trust all editors will look at that content and sort out any possible confusion between themselves in a constructive way." I don't see any confusion, I see factually incorrect info added to an article it does not belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.172.208 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anonymous IP. If you have information to add it must not be based on what you happen to know (even if that might be true). Wikipedia is only interested in having factually correct content that is supported on the page by what we term independent "Reliable Sources". Please add those sources! Rather than charge in and change everything because you happen to know something for a "fact", and leaving it looking like an unsupported, unreferenced set of WP:OPINION, I simply ask you politely to tease out the issue here over why you think two vessels have been conflated into one, explain your position clearly, and support any edits you make to this page with evidence (references). To my untrained eye there are indeed two vessels registered, now called Naeraberg. Your actions yesterday in repeatedly removing virtually all of the page's content seemed initially like vandalism, though now I see you have factual accuracy at heart. This is great. But be aware that you must respect the way Wikipedia operates by explaining your changes and supporting everything you add with evidence, and help other editors appreciate that you aren't here to cause disruption. Thanks for your interest in making Wikipedia a better place. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Surely the IMO numbers and the difference between them, serve to prove that the information in the article was complete unencyclopedic nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.172.208 (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2018‎

• FleetMon is pretty convinced—and convincing—as to them being the same. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted content to 828195093 as the changes made beyond this point to a C-Class assess article and placing (incorrectly) to Afd were disruptive. The article content quite appropriately remains in dispute. I welcome ongoing 'sourced' discussion on this page to achieve concensus and to help determine the truth of the matter.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What a mess. It needs sorting but not the IP's way - by removing all the good well-sourced material that the article is supposed to be about and then proposing deletion, all without a word on the talk page - that's just vandalism to me. Just read the initial version of the article and the work and [1] to discover what it is about and why it is notable - a fishing vessel that caused controversy in Australia and led to reviews of fishing policy by Australian authorities. When two very similar fishing vessels have held the same name, it is not surprising that confusion may arise, especially when it would seem that the original editors @JarrahTree and Longhair: appear not to be particularly familiar with reliable sources for ships - that's why we have collegiate editing. That's all that needs sorting - the correction and expansion of the material about the ship itself. Now the text has been rolled back we can work forward from here. Davidships (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me a job, Djm-leighpark. I had planned to give it a couple more days before removing the poorly-attempted AFD and reverting the edits myself - but you beat me to it. You were quite right to leave my 'disputed' template in place as there's clearly a mess to be sorted out here, but separating identically-named vessels and their synonymy is not something I'm able to assist with either. A full explanation of my concerns over the disruptive actions of the editor have been left at both IP addresses, as I concluded it was one individual using dynamic IP addresses. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Made a quick and dirty start with the ship details. I'll return to it tomorrow, and try to replace as much as possible of the blanket sourcing to the paywalled Sea-web with more accessible cites.Davidships (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've sem-protected the article for a month. If any IP's have suggestions for edits the should be made on this talk page using the {{editprotected}} template.

Suggestions for improvement - the article really needs a "Description" section, giving details of measurements, machinery etc. There is no history prior to her Australian service. This should be included in the article. Personally, I think the article is not of C class quality with so much info missing. I will downgrade it to Start class. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Still some more to do on the Australian episode, but I think that the accuracy template can come off now. Davidships (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Name

As the ship's notability is dominated so far by the events in Australia, I think that the article should be moved to Geelong Star, which is a current redirect here. Davidships (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense - you have my full support. Are all the other redirects here valid? I'm guessing if there is a second Naeraberg out there that, as the IP editor was rather clumsily trying to assert, that vessel isn't notable. But it will have to be mentioned somewhere in this article to avoid future confusion. Hope you can sort it all out. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I'll be adding some descriptive material on the ship, as well as her commercial operations over the years. Davidships (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 - IP wants to set name to Dirk Dirk

Can 31.90.221.70 and‎ 31.80.122.141 (and anyone else) please discuss this here and not directly edit the article. Not doing this will be regarded as a disruptive edit. Thankyou. 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)