Talk:HMS Justinian

Redirect

No, not a mis-interpretation of bold. This is an entirely non-notable ship. Please provide citations to third-party sources that offer evidence that anyone cares about this ship enough to provide commentary, critical reaction, etc. Otherwise, restore redirect. i.e., meet WP:BURDEN for editors adding/restoring content. Besides, all this stub does is reiterate the book's WP:PLOT. --EEMIV (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When I reverted EEMIV's original unilateral, undiscussed redirect my edit summary stated: "reverting no doubt innocent misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- discuss on talk page please". EEMIV unilaterally redirected several articles on Horatio Hornblower's fictional vessels, without regard to whether they cited references. The HMS Lydia article did cite C. Northcote Parkinson's Life and Times of Horation Hornblower. All these vessels have been discussed, in detail, in that book, in Forester's Hornblower Companion. The Hornblower novels are among the most popular and influential series of novels ever published. So I stand by my characterization of the unilateral, undiscussed redirect as a misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- which does not authorize lapses from WP:POINT. EEMIV came directly to make these redirects moments after leaving a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in the Honorverse. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please address this article's lack of sources that establish notability -- significant coverage in third-party sources; Parkinson's text, more so even than The Hornblower Companion, is an in-universe recap of the stories (framed as a biography), and hardly establishes notability. This stub itself merely regurgitates parts of the book's WP:PLOT. Rather than waiting WP:BOLD and WP:POINT, please instead justify this article's stand-alone existence through citations to multiple third-party sources that establish notability and offer a real-world perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that Parkinson was a distinguished Professor of Nautical history? Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The author's credentials are irrelevant; the content of the text is what matters. The content of the book is an in-universe repetition of the plot. If Parkinson had devoted sections of the book to Forrester's development of the ships, to critical reaction to the ships, their symbolism, or other academic details, that would be a good step toward establishing notability. However, the Parkinson text you cite is just a summary of the stories. Perhaps Parkinson wrote something ELSE that offers a real-world perspective? --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've searched through Google Books for "HMS Lydia", likely the most notable of the Hornblower ships given its appearance, too, in the Gregory Peck movie (and Sutherland already with its own article as a real ship). The Lydia, along with most of the other HH and M&C ships, are briefly cataloged as an "in fiction" sidebar on a text about Nelson's navy"HMS+Lydia"&ei=reLxSeaoG5ewyQTF7ICrCw, reiterating the strength of their armaments and hull type. That text focuses on real-world classes of ships -- hardly the focus on individual fictional vessels. The other hits from the first two pages are primary sources or cliff-notes summaries. Again, I don't see any focus on real-world aspects of the ship (e.g., Forrester's development of them and critical reaction to them). . --EEMIV (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've lost my copy of Parkinson's book. Are you consulting your copy as you write?

Normally, when someone has a concern over the quality of the references used in an article, or the lack of sufficient references, don't they leave a note on the article's talk page, or they apply an editorial tag like {{cn}} or {{refimprove}}? Don't you recognize that large, unilateral and undiscussed changes are disruptive?

Sorry, I can't agree with you that Parkinson's credentials are irrelevant. My recollection is that he offers his very well-informed professional opinions on ship design in the book, and, IMO, the fictional or semi-fictional context does not strip these opinions of value.

I don't see anyone suggesting that these articles should be candidates for featured article or good article status. However, it seems to me that the standards you are calling for these articles to meet are those that are appropriate for featured articles or good articles. Please, let's only require these articles meet the appropriate standards.

Somewhere I have a copy of the Hornblower Companion. Somewhere I have a copy of John Forester's biography of his father. Please don't expect me to look for them, and consult them as if your concerns were an urgent matter.

Regarding "The Illustrated Guide to Nelson's Navy" -- please note: [1], [2]. HMS Crab is also covered in this book -- but on pages google book's agreement with the authors has restricted from public viewing. You write that the coverage of these vessels in TIGtNN is "hardly the focus on individual fictional vessels". Sorry, whether the available references are sufficient to support an article should have been discussed -- not unilaterally redirected. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Large, unilateral changes are entirely acceptable; I and other editors do them all the time. Since this one is under dispute, we're having a talk-page conversation. It's not disruptive; it's common practice. So, put your "you're being disruptive" stick away.

The links you provide elsewhere in The Illustrated Companion are, still, reiteration of plot summary; it doesn't show significant third-party discussion of the topic from a real-world perspective. Life and Times of Horation Hornblower, again, is a rewording of the plot; unless the appendices go into detail on these specific ships (which I don't remember them doing), then it doesn't offer any sort of real-world treatment appropriate for a fictional topic. Hornblower Companion is Forrester's abbreviated recap of the texts.

The standards for all articles are the same, whether FA or GA; we don't lower the bar for obscure topics. If no one is willing to look for significant third-party sources now to establish notability, then we should restore the redirect until someone decides to take on the topic(s). Currently, though, these stubs fail to meet our inclusion and style policies and guidelines.

Why is it worthwhile to have separate stubs that repeat plot elements already covered in the individual book articles? Would you be content with merging this stub content into the book articles? What's the point of repeating plot both in ship articles and in the story articles? Why not siphon attention to the clearly notable books, and consider restoring these separate entries when/if an editor can find reliable third-party sources that offer sufficient material for an encyclopedic, not-just-repeating-the-plot, real-world treatment of these ship topics? --EEMIV (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The standards for all articles are not the same, or there would be no need for the whole FA and GA and article assessment grades. The level of referencing that supports an article is not necessarily enough for a FA, where a much higher detailed level of sourcing is required. There have been frequent attempt sto set as a deletion criterion, even at speedy, that there is no potential for a GA. This of course has been alway rejected.

The reason for coverage of plot elements in separate articles is the same as for characters --the appropriate covering of the amount of detail. Even so, I'm not necessarily saying that a separate article is warranted in this particular case. I would support a merge, if it were a true merge of the entire contents of the article, and a good faith attempt was made to keep it in. that's compromise--not a bare redirect. The redirect was wildly inappropriate for this fiction. The ships in the Hornblower series are extremely distinctive; the fiction and the references to it cover them in detail. DGG (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that a post I thought I'd sent earlier didn't save. Weird.

Anyhow, I'd be fine with a partial merge of these articles' content to their book articles. Partial because most of e.g. Justinian is a recap of poor Simpson's lackluster performance; a complete merge would be wildly! inappropriate!; ship data can go in a sub-section about the ship. Fair? --EEMIV (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)