Jump to content

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was... Nominator withdrew GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou into Maersk Hangzhou. As the ship is only notable for the current attacks, I see no need to have a separate article for the attacks and for the ship. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Propose merging Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed the battle between the US Navy and the Houthis is extremely notable. It was the first actual surface combat the US Navy has seen (other than against pirates) since the Gulf War. If anything the ship's article should be merged into that of the battle, since the battle is way more notable than the ship.XavierGreen (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you support Maersk Hangzhou being merged into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed, this attack is not insignificant and led to the Yemeni retaliation on warships in the Red Sea a week later which escalated into joint U.S.-U.K. airstrikes throughout Yemen. This is a major engagement which led to a dozen casualties. RamHez (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the attack was insignificant just that we shouldn't have two articles for the ship and the attack. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose. I agree that two articles are not required, as the ship's notability at present derives primarily from the Red Sea events. However the combined article is better at this current title because Although "Maersk Hangzhou" is consistent with WP:CONCISE, and is a more likely search term than "Attacks on the MV...." (which, if used, will still succeed via the redirect), taking WP:TITLE as a whole, as well as WP:ONEEVENT, the proposal is not justified. Favour reverse merge. - Davidships (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the overwhelming majority of articles that even mention the ship at all are mostly about the attack. In fact, there is nothing notable about the ship at all other than the attack.XavierGreen (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Davidships. In 30 years this will make more sense if covered similarly to MV Sea Isle City and Tanker War. The attack will be part of the ship's history and part of whatever the larger crisis article is. Every news event doesn't need its own article. There are several articles already trying to cover this topic. Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war, Operation Prosperity Guardian, United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present), 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. The ship article should exist and contain a summary of the Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou content. Anything else should go in one of the other articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
updating... I don't support redirecting from the ship article or deleting the ship article. The ship will be around long after the attack is forgotten. With everything else happening, the press hasn't even published account of the ship's damage. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your example is factually wrong, the Sea Isle city incident and the American response does have its own article at Operation Nimble Archer. The Attack on the MV Maersk Hangzhou article also encompasses a naval battle in which direct combat occurred between the US Navy and the Houthis. The US Navy hasn't engaged in such an action since the Gulf War, and the Battle of Bubiyan and Battle of Ad-Dawrah are actions of a similar magnitude that occured during the Gulf War and have their own articles. And as for your example of the Tanker War, that conflict has articles for separate engagements that occurred such as the Bridgeton incident and the USS Stark incident.XavierGreen (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose & Support – I believe this is a non-person case of WP:ONEEVENT. As of this !vote, the ship article (Maersk Hangzhou) has only information (excluding ship specs in infobox) related with the attacks (Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou). Comparing the two articles, the ship article is 1/3 the size of the attacks article. So, now I need to explain my oddly-bolded !vote. I basically support a reverse merge of the proposed merge. Given WP:ONEEVENT, I actually support a merge (i.e. redirecting) the ship article (Maersk Hangzhou) into the attacks article (Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou), as the specs alone do not make the ship any more notable than it was from the two-days of attacks (i.e. "single" event notability - WP:1E: "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.") I am a strong opposed to merging the attacks article into the ship article though, given the CTOPS nature of the attacks article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou – As per the arguments made by XavierGreen and The Weather Event Writer. I no longer support the attack article being merged into the ship article but the ship article being merged into the attack article.
GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have changed my !Vote above, partly from consideration of WP:ONEEVENT, and also from thinking about another, quite unrelated, case. - Davidships (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou. Most editors supported a merge, noting that both articles are small and that there is a substantial overlap between them as the ship article is mostly about the attack. Some editors argued that the articles should not be merged because both subjects are independently notable, but notability alone does not guarantee a standalone article if there are other reasons to merge per WP:NOPAGE. A counter-proposal to merge the attack article into the ship article did not garner support. Charcoal feather (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the previous discussion under the suggestion of Davidships after withdrawing my nomination. As most of the votes of the previous discussion were invalid or uncertain, I have created a new proposal to merge Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Dual Freq, if I may ask, could you explain why the ship has equal notability to the attacks? My question stems from your claim it is as notable as any other ship in that category. Which means, you believe that right now, it has more notability than WP:ONEEVENT. An additional explanation of why you think that would be helpful for myself and possibly others in the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the Sea Isle City and Honam incidents do not have their own articles. In fact, these are two cases where moving to incident-targeted articles would make sense, seeing as both's articles are almost exclusively covering their attack and fire, respectively. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Maersk Hangzhou is currently non notable and only notable for the attacks on it. Article should be talking about the attacks on the vessel. If the attacks did not happen, Maersk Hangzhou would not be an article anytime soon. ~ JASWE (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There is nothing notable about the ship other than the attack and ensuing battle. Any details regarding the ship can be added (along with those of the warships involved) in a new "order of battle" section on the article.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It could get tricky to untangle if anything else happens to the ship, and the article contains some different info or differently formatted info. We shouldn't have a stub fire every ship that exists, but it's useful to have a separate page for ships that were in big events. Make sure the articles are clearly linked, but keep separate for now. Irtapil (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively - If the articles are merged, copy the infobox to the other article. Would it work to have it below the main box? Irtapil (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that that would work fine. - Davidships (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greyshark09, if I may ask a question. In the previously withdrawn merge proposal, your assessment was questioned by another user. Since you are using that same argument, do you have anything else to add or do you disagree with the questioned that were asked in the previous merge proposal? You do not have to share anything else obviously, but a little more explanation of (1) your previous assessment as well as (2) a potential rebuttal to the questions asked about it may prove useful for myself and others who currently disagree with you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Over-precision. Effectively, appending "attack on" or "sinking of" is over-precision. It is a needless disambiguator that does not help with navigation. There are not multiple Maesk Hangzhous that this could be confused with
  2. Navigation. Readers will almost certainly just type in "Maersk Hanzhou" into the search bar. No one is typing "Attack on the Maersk Hangzhou" into wikipedia. We should make it as easy to navigate as possible, and use the most common term.
  3. Potential for Bias. Different news sources use different terms. Adding this to the title forces us to choose one. Is it an "attack", a "strike", a "raid", a "sinking", or any other of a million words? Simply using the ship's title allows us to avoid that language and encompass the verbiage of all sources. (Currently, there are 4 different styles for 4 different articles in the Red Sea Crisis alone: Attack on the MV Maersk Hangzhou, Sinking of the MV Rubymar, Marlin Luanda missile strike, and 2023 attack on the Chem Pluto)
  4. Organization. Having things under the ship's title streamlines encyclopedic organization. We standardize everything instead of having to have this discussion on every single ship article every time this happens. This will reduce the amount of time editors spend arguing over this and increase the time they spend editing. Put quickly, this is the most simple solution to the problem.
Please let me know your thoughts! Fritzmann (message me) 17:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to make the proposal until after this discussion establishes precedent, but I also strongly want to move Sinking of the MV Rubymar back to MV Rubymar, which was its title before it was sunk. Fritzmann (message me) 17:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I have been burned under this ideology in my past (even to the point of being blocked), there is no “precedent” on Wikipedia, unless it is a consensus about the specific issue. Meaning this specific discussion creates no “precedent” except whether Maersk Hangzhou can be a stand-alone article, compared to the Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou. So while you would be free to propose a merge of another article, you need reasoning besides this discussion (pending this discussions outcome obviously), as technically speaking, this discussion has 0 impact on any other discussion outside this article’s stand-alone notability. Just keep that in mind going forward. OTHERSTUFF can be used to help strengthen an idea, but it alone should even be avoided in discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: in that case, I really think this discussion needs to be broadened. It is not pragmatic to have this same argument on every article. We should create a policy, perhaps in the WP:SHIPS guide, that serves as the default case. If there are exceptions to that rule, then further discussion on those would be warranted. However, beating a horse that is resurrected every time an attack happens is just super exhausting. Do you think an RfC would be warranted? Fritzmann (message me) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an RfC would be helpful, but after this discussion. I would also recommend reading everything in this discussion as well the previous discussion (which the nominator withdrew), which coincidentally was the proposed merge you were suggesting (i.e. attacks into ship article). This discussion has been up for requested closure for 2 weeks now. I obviously am involved (as I commented an !vote earlier), so I do not feel confident to do a non-administrator closure. That said, if I was to close the discussion right now, it would have to be a non-consensus closure, given there is 6 supports for this merger and five opposes. If you look back at the previous (withdrawn) merger, there evolved a near complete consensus for this style of merge. The main issue at hand when looking at the support and oppose !votes is basically a policy interpretation: Whether WP:ONEEVENT only applies to people or if it is able to be applied “universally” on Wikipedia. If it only applies to people, then the arguments for oppose would overwhelm the support. If it applies “universally”, then I would say the support !votes overwhelm the oppose !votes in terms of policy reasoning.
Basically, this discussion honestly may need a “non-consensus” closure followed-up by an RfC to determine how that policy actually applies. That would basically solve future debates and would be that RfC (more or less) that you are thinking about. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agreed. And yes, I did read the discussions. My purpose was that my comment would help to combine some previous arguments into a cogent line of reasoning. I concur that the best course of action is a "no consensus" close followed by an RfC, probably at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've not done one before, but would be happy to propose it (if you would prefer to that is 100% alright as well). I think sorting this out one way or another is beneficial, no matter what the actual outcome. Fritzmann (message me) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion for an RFC discussion to discuss whether WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. I also commented at Closure requests my opinion on the closure of this discussion. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading the first merge proposal but it is not so clear. What happened with the first merge proposal was that I changed my mind on merging the attacks into the ship article and it became a complete mess with most of the votes being ambiguous or invalid and I created this one to get a clearer consensus as I stated in the discussion.

If you look back at the previous (withdrawn) merger, there evolved a near complete consensus for this style of merge.

As I stated previously, many of the votes of the previous discussion are unclear so I wouldn't use the previous merge discussion for much other than to read some of the arguments made there. But looking at the previous discussion it seems to me that most of the votes were to merge the ship into the attack evenly split with the votes being like this:
  • Merge attack article into ship article: 1
    • Andy Dingley
  • Merge ship article into attack article: 4
    • nominator (originally support attacks into ship but changed my vote and withdrew)
    • Davidships
    • The Weather Event Writer
    • JASWE
  • Oppose: 4
    • XavierGreen
    • RamHez
    • GreyShark
    • Dual Freq
GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:ONEEVENT, regardless of if it applies to non-bio articles. The main point here obviously still applies, especially considering the only prose of the article outside of the lede and infobox (which is exclusively sourced from one source and quite frankly needlessly technical) is about the sinking. All of the article's information outside of the infobox content could be merged and the only information not brought over would be the infobox contents, and, as in with the 2023 attack on the Chem Pluto, we could move a condensed version of the infobox over too. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because there is hardly anything in the ship article, and nothing that would not be appropriate for the event article. If the merged article is initially named for the event, and expanded to be mostly about the ship, the title can be changed accordingly, and the combined article would still be appropriate. If if it is ever so large that it needs to be split, then split it again. Until then redirects will suffice. The relevance of WP:ONEEVENT is not really clear enough to use it convincingly as an argument on its own, but the general principle it represents is valid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not sure why editors are quoting WP:ONEEVENT which is a notability guideline to do with people. The appropriate reason to merge is that there is substantial overlap and neither article is so large that it justifies the ship having its own article. TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC about WP:ONEEVENT

[edit]

Does WP:ONEEVENT apply to ships? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What would that mean if it does? Are you talking about notability, and thus a reason to delete two articles? Or still about the merge? (For the third time, I'd support merging). Because I can't see a ONEEVENT relation to the merge - huge ships justify articles pretty widely here, just on their own basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about both. I am talking about whether it is necessary to have both articles and whether the ship is notable due to the attacks. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. This article and the attack can still be merged, however, per Andy. – SJ + 02:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a principle of whether one or two articles is more appropriate, it can be extended to any topic. As a measure of notability, not so much. Maybe this is not the right question? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly worded rfc. If you want to ask questions or make decisions about where ONEEVENT applies, the forum is WT:NBIO (edit: sorry, WT:SHIPS may also be a good forum; I’m less familiar with where shipping specific guidelines are). Please reword the question to make it clear exactly what about this page you would like comment on. If your concern is whether the article should be retitled, you may close this rfc and open an WP:RM. Otherwise, you may close and open a new discussion or rfc. (Summoned by bot) — HTGS (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where it sits it is obviously specifically about people, but so what? Its principles are founded on WP:N, and is therefore a useful guide in similar contexts. Big ships are no more likely to be notable than physically big people or big buildings, and most aren't. There are eleven H-class container ships, nine of which, so far as I can tell, are not individually notable in WP:GNG terms. There is nothing invalid about using the thinking in ONEEVENT in considering the interlinked questions at hand: (a) one article or two, (b) if the former, under what title, and (c) if the latter, what is in the article that is not about the incident. - Davidships (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do apologize for my phrasing regarding my desire for a merge. My point about ONEEVENT applying was not that ONEEVENT itself applies, but that a similar principle applies. This ship, in my estimation, is only noteworthy for a single event that has it's own article. I suspect there is a better policy that applies more directly to such a situation, but I think the fact that the article is mostly composed of content that is present in another article is fairly significant. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of simplicity and navigation, ONEEVENT should not apply to ships. Users will not search for "Attack on Foo" or "Sinking of Foo", they will just search for Foo. Not applying ONEEVENT also removes the possibility for contention in article titles. Reliable sources may use different language in describing an event; Reuters may say "attack", while BBC may say "strike", while Fox could use "raid". Instead of requiring discussion on which to choose for every single article, if we just locate each at the name of the ship we can save editor-hours in the long term. This also future-proofs the articles. Perhaps a ship experiences another event in the future, which has happened regularly (Like MV Rubymar, which was first "attacked" and then "sank"). Instead of having to continually move the article, if it is located under the ship's name then these continuing events are also covered. In short, applying ONEEVENT to ships will increase the work of editors for no real gain, and will not improve navigation or the reader experience. I strongly oppose applying it and advocate that a specific caveat in the guidance should be made for this instance. Fritzmann (message me) 12:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maersk_Hangzhou&oldid=1224945630"