Talk:HMS Mahratta (G23)

Issues with this article

I have 3 issues with this article:

• It is made up sunstantially of lists of participants, which (if required at all) should really reside at articles on the operations themselves
• It is sourced almost entirely from the single website Destroyer HMS Mahratta G23
• It claims that Mahratta was sunk by U-956, based only on the website mentioned above, which itself states as conjecture that U-956 may have sunk Mahratta, while everything else I can find says that she was sunk by U-990.

Shem (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that removed about 50% of the article. Having the ships listed is part of "build the web" as many of them can be turned into articles in due course. When I originally created the article, I was faced with some sources claiming one boat sunk her, and some claiming it was another. The source quoted does not state that U-956 definitely sank her, only that she may have done so.

I see nothing wrong with the website used as the main source. They are not likely to want to disseminate incorrect information, are they? Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of vast amounts of unencyclopedic data just to "build the web" is not a good reason to burden this article with unreadable lists that add nothing to the subject. They are all listed as red links on other articles, such as List of destroyer classes of the Royal Navy. See WP:BTW and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Build_the_web. The overwhelming reasons why this should not be accepted are listed at Wikipedia:Relevance of content.

The issue with the claim that she had been sunk by U-956 has rather gone away since the revision as of 23:40, 13 April 2009 by 70.67.181.238, changing the submarine to U-990.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources states that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm inclined to accept Destroyer HMS Mahratta G23 as a source for the meantime, although it breaks Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. What bothered me at first was the reliance on the single source, and this is beginning to be less of a problem.

I'm sorry you obviously spent ages getting all the information in this article, but that doesn't change the fact that it needs to go. I am somewhat bothered that I posted my concerns with this article on 19 February, but that you didn't see fit to reply until I made the copyedit two months later! If you had an objection to the removal of this information, you ought to have responded to the original concerns, rather than reverting. If you're still not happy, please seek to build consensus on this issue. Shem (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I didn't respond is that I don't watch list talk pages. Had you contacted me directly in Feb, I would have responded. I have a subpage in which I've got all articles and lists I've contributed to listed, which acts as a sort of watchlist via the "Related changes" feature. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If I can offer an outsider's view on this? (I think I did leave some comments on your talkpage back when you first asked for comments about this) I endorse Shem's work so far on this article (if he hadn't have gotten around to it at some point I probably would have, though a lot later on!) The page now looks a lot better with all that detail which has no direct relevance to a tightly written encyclopaedic article on HMS Mahratta (which merchant ships she sailed with in a convoy for example) removed. These are fine in a convoy article, such as Convoy PQ 17, or Convoy PQ 18, but ought not to be repeated in every article on a ship that took part.

If I could make a further suggestion, list formats in articles not set up to be lists are also generally discouraged, hence Template:Prose. Converting the current format of staccato-style listings of convoys, like 'Convoy RA 54B: Convoy RA 54B departed Archangel on 26 November 1943 bound for Loch Ewe. Passage was hampered by poor weather conditions, but the convoy did not come under attack.' into something more like those at HMS Fury (H76), eg. 'In April she escorted the convoys HX-329 (where she drove off an attacking U-boat group), HX-234 and ONS-5.' will condense information and allow for much smoother reading. It will also allow you to integrate related information more seamlessly, such as transferral between commands, periods of refit and repair, changes to homeports, etc. For details on specific convoys, such as ONS 5, the reader can go that particular article, and the same for the other convoys when those articles are created. You can go into greater detail of course for convoys that the article subject is substantially involved in, but a full listing of convoy movements can be moved to the appropriate articles.

I'd also concur with Shem's concerns over sourcing. I'm sure Destroyer HMS Mahratta G23's claims are all true, but it still probably fails the reliable sources test. Other websites that can back up elements of its claims would be a temporary solution for finding reliable third party coverage, but I know that will be difficult since Mahratta was one ship amongst many.

You might want to try at least watchlisting the pages you create Mjroots (I have nearly 3,500) on my watchlist and it doesn't get too overwhelming. Sometimes people will raise comments and queries on the talkpages, and it's handy to be able to address them using the knowledge you have from researching and writing the article. Benea (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Benea, I do have every article I've created and worked on watchlisted via my User:Mjroots/Articles subpage (via the "Related changes" feature) I don't watchlist talk pages though. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I follow that, but the advantage of having an article on your watchlist rather than using a 'related changes' feature is that it will watch both the article and the talkpage, which can be a handy feature. You could add the links to the talkpages of your articles to your subpage and use the 'related changes' feature to monitor them as well. But it's completely up to you how you track the articles you are interested in. Benea (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The name 'Mahratta'

I'm curious about the name 'Mahratta' which has been used while naming HMS Mahratta of the British Royal Navy and SS Mahratta(1832), SS Mahratta(1917) steamships owned by Brockleback line. Can somebody find out as to why were these ships named so, as 'Mahratta' is not an English name. The name Mahratta is synonymous with the name Maratha. 'Mahratta' which was used earlier was replaced by the word 'Maratha' probably in the 19th century.Kesangh (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to find foreign words used as names for ships. Given the close connection between India and Britain during the imperial period a number of naval ships were given names that borrowed from the Indian language or geography, just as there have from other parts of the empire. There have been HMS Sultans, Imaums, Punjabis, Ashantis, Afridis, Dehlis, Calcuttas, Madrases, Zulus, etc. The connection continues for shipping lines, that often gave their ships names that evoked the destinations they were travelling to, such as the Empress of India, China, Japan. These are only a very few examples, there are many more once you start to check. Benea (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)