Wikipedia

Talk:List of dry docks

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Blue Riband in topic Inclusion criteria?
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of dry docks. 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:

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) 02:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

List of dry dockz

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted my edit of the list of dry docks. So to you it's normal that the list is simply a random list of dry docks with absolutely no criteria, with tiny docks of 56 meters included? Obviously there are much bigger dry docks that are missing, which makes this article a completely misleading and unmanageable mess. I think that it's completely grotesque, but whatever. Н Француз (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Н Француз: I'm not sure why you seem so upset about this, but let's see if something can't be worked out. If your complaint is that this list is missing certain entries, how does removing other entries improve It? I also don't see why you removed content based only on your own seemingly random, personal preferences. You made a bold edit, then got reverted, now we discuss. (As per WP:BRD). As this is about article content, it should be discussed on the article talk page, not a user talk page. This gives others an opportunity to contribute. (This is also a preference of many including myself, which is clearly marked as such on my page, which you just as clearly ignored). Anyway, this is a "list of dry docks", not a "List of longest dry docks". There is simply no need to remove the 3 shortest entries. At least that I can see, perhaps others will feel differently. Give it a few days and see what, if anything, anyone else has to say, and perhaps we can form a consensus, one way or the other. - theWOLFchild 08:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
"removed content based only on your own seemingly random, personal preferences". Please read what I wrote. I removed the 3 tiniest of the list. that's what I wrote in the comment, of my edit, and you must have seen it before reverting it. So, no, you cannot say it was random. The only sentence of this (currently) terrible article is "This is a list of the largest dry docks in the world, including excavated and floating docks". Well, that's rather clear and it gives us an idea of what should be in that list: very large docks. This list currently includes small docks, for the wrong reason that they are located in the same naval shipyards as much bigger ones. That could work if it was a list of the largest shipyards. So one possibility is to rename the article "list of shipyards". Another problem is that the list is just too big. A simple solution would be to set a maximum number of docks in the list (100 or 200 for example - many list, probably most, are limited to 100 or even fewer). Another solution would be to include all docks with dimensions superior to a threshold: For example all docks 200 meters and over, plus maybe those wider than 40 meters or deeper than 10 meters, and maybe a couple of otherwise remarkable docks (oldest large-ish still functioning, largest one specialized in submarines, largest in Africa…), for example). The current situation is that it includes a bunch of tiny docks, and that since there is no threshold there is no point in trying to find all the large docks that are missing. Quite a few docks longer than 200 meters are missing (at least up to 250 meters, from what I know). So currently, this list is a random, biased, misleading selection of large-ish docks, and keeping it this way isn't helping. Н Француз (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much or why you're approaching this as if you're prearring for some kind of hostile debate. I had said "random" because your preferences seem to be just that. You haven't cited any policies or guidelines to support your changes or proposed changes, if fact, all you wrote was "...many list, probably most, are limited to 100 or even fewer.". "Probably"...? (So, you don't know) No, there is not any kind of limit like that imposed on lists. Article size is typically guided by amount of data on the page. Once they get too large, a split is usually proposed. But even then there are exceptions. The article title is "List of drydocks" I see someone added a sub-heading with "largest" added, but even then, any list of the "largest" will descend down to the smaller entries. Again, I don't see a burning need to remove those 3 enties. If you want to improve the list, feel free to search out as many large size dry docks as you can and add them. If you have an issue with the article name, propose a Move Request. I would suggest that you do some reading up on the policies & guidelines first and get to know you way around. I see you're relatively new with only a few dozen edits so far, so gaining some familiarity with the project couldn't hurt. This is the reason I added a 'welcome" template to your page, as I believed you would find it helpful (not sure why you immediately removed it, but whatever). Also, like most editors here on the English Wikipedia, I don't speak/read/write Serbian, so some people may have difficulty communicating with you, as your username (which looks like "H-something-3") poses some difficulties. I also posted some username info to help you out, but you immediately deleted that as well. The point is, it's a strange attitude for a new user to adopt in what is largely a collaboratively environment. (You are here to contribute, right?) Anyway... good luck with that. I look forward to seeing the super-sized dry docks you come up with. Let me know if I can be of anymore help. Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Inclusion criteria?

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started to update some rotted links in this article but after reading these comments one has to ask: 1) what is the purpose of this article, and 2) what is the inclusion criteria?

What purpose does this article intend to serve? Information on what big ship building and repair sites exist? I doubt a cruise line or shipping operator would use Wikipedia to find a place to repair their ship.

What's included and what is not? Is it active drydocks? If so then defunct shipyards - e.g. Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point - should be cut as these facilities are no longer functioning. Should it be only drydocks over a particular size? 100m? 200m? Blue Riband► 13:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_dry_docks&oldid=898870344"