Talk:HMAS Otama

Name origin

Where did it's name come from? --Commking 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered in the article a while back: an Aboriginal word meaning "dolphin". -- saberwyn 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncited fact

Removing the uncited fact During the 1980s and early 1990s, Otama was one of two "special fit" submarines used for intelligence gathering missions. I recall seeing such claims in an issue of Reveille (the magazine publish by the RSL NSW branch), but can't track down a copy or alternate sources at this point in time. -- saberwyn 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it may be uncited, it was correct. Whilst it may have been a good idea to remove it, it was nonetheless wrong. I was a crew member of Otama and can vouch for the validity of the claim. Otama and Orion were both utilized and configured as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TB131314 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can believe that its correct. Unfortunately, to be included in an article, information needs to be WP:Verifiable (which basically means attributable to a reliable, published source). -- saberwyn 03:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Progress on museuming: potential source

Just noting a potential source here on the approval of a berthing site for Otama, being touted as the first step in preserving her as a museum vessel. -- saberwyn 08:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Otama: It's all ashore for submarine

Just curious how this relates to the HMAS Otama??Terrence3915 (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrence3915 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about recent additions

I am concered about recent additions made to this article over the past few days. I, among others, have reverted the addtions for two main reasons:

1. No reliable published sources are provided, which means that, although possibly true, the information cannot be verified.
2. Some of the claims being made contradict material already in the article, which is attributed to reliable sources

In addition, the edits used a non-encyclopedic style, and included external links in places other than the external links section. Although these 'lesser' issues could have been handled through the normal editing process, they were entwined in the uncited and contradictory additions.

Following the most recent inclusion of the content, I will make no more reverts. Instead, I will copyedit additions to meet appropriate style guidelines, and use cleanup tags to indicated uncited or inappropriate material. I invite those who have edited the article recently, plus anyone with the article on their watchlist to come and help work out the best way forward. -- saberwyn 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there I am obviously new to this and would definately appreciate some help. I am a current member and past Secretary and Vice president of the Western Port Oberon Association. Everything I have put on the site is factual and with the consent of W.P.O.A. Most of the content can be verified on the Victorian Maritime Centre web page. I can of course answer any relevant questions. I personally listed the Otama on Ebay in 2008 and I maintain their webpage. maritimecentre.com.au. You may also accept that some "Reiable" sources may not be correct.

I am yet to learn how to create a citation, as I certainly will. It has taken a while to even find this page. --- User:Terrence3915 13:53, 8 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrence3915 (talk • contribs) Terrence3915 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Terrence3915! First off, my apologies for not clearly showing the way here, its my fault for not providing explanations easily understandable by those who haven't been involved in this project for years.

For information to be included in Wikipedia, it needs to be "verifiable", one of Wikipedia's core content policies. This means that the information must have been previously published by a reputable body (generally summarised as a large organisation with editorial oversight and a complaints-and-corrections process, such as a major newspaper like The Age, an academic or large-scale general book publisher like Allen & Unwin, a government department or entity like the CSIRO, or a recognised individual or organisation in the subject area like Jane's Information Group or the Navy League of Australia).

Publishers should be independent of the subjects they are publishing about. I'm not sure if the VMC website is independent enough to be used to source content on attempts to preserve the submarine (although I am seeking other opinions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard), but any third-party sources, like news or journal articles, or even press releases like the DOD one you added earlier (although I did go and link to the original press release instead of the VMC-hosted jpg of it) would be fantastic. If the VMC or the WPOA tracks newspapers, journals, books, andor other sources that the submarine appears in, a list of those here on the talk page would be a fantastic starting point for expanding the article.

Verifiability is independent from how true the information is: if several reliable publishers like The Herald Sun and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation publish a reasonable claim about the sale of a submarine because the body that owns it can no longer afford to maintain it, and nobody publishes the claim that the sale is solely an attention-grabbing stunt that will never go ahead, the reliable publishers go into the article unless its a claim that is later disproved in a reliable, published source.

To add a reference to the article, add after the statement <ref> I am a reference, information and links go in between the "ref" tags </ref> . You can try using the {{citation}} templates like {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}, but if you are unsure of how to make them work, just add what you can in between the ref tags and myself or someone else will come along and hammer it into shape.

As an aside, if you make a comment on a talk page like this, add four tildes (~~~~) after your message so people know who to reply to. Indent replies using the colon (:) to help posts by separate people to stand out, more colons = more indenting. -- saberwyn 07:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I listed the sub myself and the only others privy to our intentions are the committee of WPOA and staff at Ebay who I communicated with. I cannot find the reference to not being able to afford the maintainence of the submarine. It would have been more appropriate to state that we were having difficulty maintaining the sub. As far as the breakdown of the grant for the purchase and relocation of the sub, I do not think it would be appropriate of me to post the receipts on line. Of course we are the only source. Thanks anyway, I will have to search for the relevant articlesTerrence3915 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Auction interest

• From The Australian: "...Bundaberg in Queensland, Grafton in NSW, and Werribee, Frankston and St Kilda in Victoria."
• From The Shipping Times: "...Werribee, from St Kilda Marina, from Frankston council and from Grafton and Bundaberg."

Any further information from reliable, published sources (particularly for the Bundaberg and Grafton items) would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Otama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201162421/http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2011/01/27/sundances-unheralded-short-film-and-grant-winners/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2011/01/27/sundances-unheralded-short-film-and-grant-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)