Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force

Table format in station articles

Dates in service Class ON Op. No. Name Comments
2007−present Watson-class ON 1286 16-06 Frank and Anne Wilkinson

I see absolutely no reason for this format of table. Surely the Name of the boat should come first, but in the RNLI world, this is prefixed by an Official Number, and/or an Operational number. MartinOjsyork (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A well-designed table uses the first column to show the way that the rows are ordered. Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geof
"Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date."
You are fully aware that is Not Correct.
All Station fleet tables were amended earlier this year to be of the same format as Lifeboat Fleet, with the ON and Op numbers first, followed by the name, service dates and class, in order to make some order of the mish-mash that existed previously.
The only tables that are different are the ones you have amended since my updates. Exmouth, Looe, Fowey, Teignmouth, Dart, Torbay, Plymouth, Salcombe.
MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Martin, I think you misunderstood what I meant by the way the rows are ordered. The tables have each row in successive date order. For example:
At Exmouth ON Op. No. Name Class
1933–1953 767 Catherine Harriet Eaton Self-righting
1953–1960 916 Maria Noble Liverpool
1960–1963 749 George and Sarah Strachan Watson
1963–1968 838 Michael Stephens Watson
1968–1970 847 Gertrude Watson
1970–1983 1012 48-009 City of Birmingham Solent
1983–1994 1088 33-06 Caroline Finch Brede
1994–1996 1045 44-019 Louis Marchesi of the Round Table Waveney
1996–2008 1210 14-12 Forward Birmingham Trent
2008–2014 1178 12-21 Margaret Jean Mersey
2014– 1310 13-03 R. and J. Welburn Shannon
Putting the rows into order for ON, Op No, name or class would put the rows in a different order. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, yes, you are correct, all the station fleet tables are ordered in Service Date order, and have always been arranged in Service date order, even those showing ON and OP numbers first. Ojsyork (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I started updates, I primarily worked on Fleet tables, which have ON numbers first.
Moving onto Station pages, I found a complete mish-mash of styles, and unaware of any directive on WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force, if they needed work, they were all made the same.
I do not really have a problem with the style of table you have produced above, and if that is what the majority prefer, then we make them all the same.
In Service, ON, Op, Name, Class, Comments
(I still think In Service, as it is consistent, and works better than At XXXX. At XXXX works fine for Bude, but not for Porthdinllaen, which creates a very wide column with no data. However, We discussed On Station as an alternative?)
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200 Done

Dear All

When I started out updating Lifeboat pages just 1 year ago, it was out of abject frustration that pages were out of date. With pages up to 5 years out of date, I thought my contributions would help. I've done my best to update what I can, match the style that went before, but to try to ensure a consistent format across all the pages.

I then discovered that I could produce station pages, and worked out enough ways to find sufficient content, a format that I'm happy with, and I trust most other folks are too, by the comments I receive. By the middle of the year, I realised I'd completed over 100 pages, so I then set myself the target of 200, to be completed in this RNLI 200th Anniversary year.

Isle of Whithorn Lifeboat Station, completed today, is no. 200.

May I wish you all a Happy Christmas and best wishes for 2025.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! 200 articles is an excellent achievement and fitting commemoration of the anniversary. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table format in station articles

With only two primary page editors at this time, who are in disagreement, the Tit-for-Tat re-editing of lifeboat tables in station articles cannot continue. Until such time as there is agreement on a format, for now, it is suggested that what is done is done, and no changes should be made. The two preferred options are listed below for gradual development. The primary first decision is Dates first, OR, ON and Op numbers first, as per Lifeboat article tables.

Table format in station articles

Option 1:

'ON' is the Official Number of the boat used in RNLI records from 1884.
'Op. No.' is the RNLI's Operational Number displayed on the boat.

At station ON Op. No. Name Build Class Comments
1878–1888 – – Henry William Pickersgill 1878 Self-righting 35 ft (11 m) boat.[1]
1947–1949 694 – J.B. Proudfoot 1924 Watson Built for Cromer in 1924 where it was named H.F. Bailey.[2]
1949–1967 860 – Southern Africa 1949 Barnett [3]
1967–1979 1003 44-004 Faithful Forester 1967 Waveney Sold for lifeboat service in Australia.[4]

References

  1. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 16–17.
  2. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 44–45.
  3. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 52–53.
  4. ^ Leonard & Denton 2025, pp. 58–59.

Option 2:

ON[a] Op. No.[b] Name Build At station[1] Class Comments
Pre-636 – Henry William Pickersgill 1878 1878–1888 35-foot Self-righting (P&S) [Note 1]
694 – J.B. Proudfoot 1924 1947–1949 45-foot Watson Previously named H.F. Bailey at Cromer
860 – Southern Africa 1949 1949–1967 51-foot Barnett
1003 44-004 Faithful Forester 1967 1967–1979 Waveney (Deleted comment, duplication from Fleet page)

  1. ^ ON is the RNLI's Official Number of the boat.
  2. ^ Op. No. is the RNLI's Operational Number of the boat carried on the hull.
Pre ON numbers are unofficial numbers used by the Lifeboat Enthusiast Society to reference early lifeboats not included on the official RNLI list.

Notes

  1. ^ 35-foot x 8-foot 6in (10-Oared) self-righting lifeboat, built by Forrestt of Limehouse, costing £155.

References

  1. ^ Leonard & Denton 2024, pp. 16–17, 44–45, 52–53, 58–59.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Ojsyork (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said last time this was discussed, a well-designed table uses the first column to show the way that the rows are ordered. Which is why station articles are best as in Option 1 (that is, the date order the lifeboat was at the station) whereas lifeboat class articles are best as Option 2 (in numerical sequence). Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geof Sheppard
I've thought long and hard over this, but I still think its wrong. The list should be in order of primary information, and as its a list of lifeboats, that is the name of the lifeboat, not the date.
And whilst they should be listed in date order, the lifeboat name is always preceded by ON and OP numbers, then we put them first.
Also to be considered is build date. (I think this should be included on all tables). The build date should ALWAYS go before the service date, but this is impossible if you put the service date first in the table. Creating a table with a build date first is equally ridiculous.
The LBES handbook is in ON order.
So, I appeal to you to reconsider, especially as there are now over 200 articles with ON and OP numbers first. Sorry, I've been busy. Do you want to spend the time changing them all, or are you better off creating S/West pages.
However, I don't believe we will ever agree. So until there is a consensus from the wider group, then the directive has been suspended, primarily to end the tit-for-tat editing. I'll not change anything else that exists to the other way, I trust you to respect that too.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is MOS:TABLES any help, or is that just muddying the waters? (I haven't read it, and don't intend to; just wondered) Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking mirrors Geof's reasoning, sortable tables with the date up front (on station pages) makes the most sense to me. I think Martin is correct about the primary information being first, but to me that's the date; when I'm browsing these pages my eye is always drawn to the bottom left of the list to see which lifeboats are currently active at a particular station.
I prefer the more specific class names in option 2 but I'm not sure about the notes in the comment section; the class is already there, why cant the comment just be "built by Forrestt of Limehouse, costing £155."?
There's no rush with any of this whatever the case. It would be good to have a standard, but 'fixing' these can wait for later, also if it's just a case of moving fields around I could probably whip up an semi-automated way of doing it so you guys can focus on the real work 😄. Aluxosm (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aluxosm
So where would you put Build date? My primary issue with service date first, is that build date should come before Service date.
With regard to the 'notes' on the spec of the lifeboat, this was done so that the table isn't too cluttered, and can be updated as better details of specification are found. This leaves the comments section for relevent but one off information, such as 'Last Tyne on service', 'converted to engine power', or 'left on the beach at Dunkirk'. For any boat with a fleet page, I see no value in listing what happened next, as that is covered on the fleet page, and effectively doubles the update work if new information appears.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojsyork: Ah gotcha, I see what you're saying about the build date, but I actually still think #Option 1 is more correct here; I don't think it's the most important information and don't see why it ALWAYS (emphasis yours) has to go before the service date. I feel like it fits in very well with the ship naming docs and the guidance for short descriptions with dates, 1967 Waveney <that was> sold for lifeboat service in Australia sounds pretty natural to me.
I'm not sure that we should be too concerned with tying to keep the tables as narrow as possible; I think a short, single sentence description is fine, only using notes to expand on parts of it if needed. I don't really like the empty sections with only notes to be honest, I tend to just skip past them, completely missing any of the actual note text. If it's something that requires a much longer description, putting something before the table and under the 'Station lifeboats' heading seems like a good way to go.
I do see what you're saying about the duplicated information and I don't love it either, but a certain amount is always bound to happen. It would be good to add this to some general guidance though, on keeping the duplicated text to a minimum and about what information should go where.
This is all really useful, thanks for working through it! Aluxosm (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham
Not sure MOS:TABLES is any help at this point
Are you not going to make a contribution?
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd mention it. No I'm not contributing, as I never had much of a grasp of tables (I'm a word person, not a graphics person), but I'm following the process in case I learn something. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent the last week or so searching around the internet for examples of tables. In every case where the row order was important, the first column contained that important information.
My reading took in books and journals from different publishers, and guidance for editors, scientists, statisticians and civil servants. All used a first column (or 'row header') that reflected the order of the rows.
I even challenged an AI tool to improve a table. It put the dates in the first column, reasoning that "as each date is unique, placing this first ensures immediate recognition of the timeline".
I had already looked at MOS:TABLE. There is a lot of information but nothing that explicitly says the columns should be in a any particular order. It does, however, remind us that sortable tables are useful if people might want to the see the rows in a different order (say, by name or by number) although I agree this isn't usually necessary if there are just two or three rows. It also states that we must "Avoid using <br /> tags in adjacent cells to create a visual row that is not reflected in the HTML table structure". This isn't usually a problem in station articles but it is in many of the lifeboat class lists and also in the list of lifeboat stations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing my entries in this list (New articles)

@Geof Sheppard

I changed your entries. I don't think "expanding a redirect" is the correct description. If you have created a whole new article, it should be recorded as such, regardless of whether it replaces a previously created redirect. But I will respect your wishes.

However, a little ironic you ask this, when you have no problem changing what everyone else produces. Annoying isn't it!

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that I haven't created a whole new article. I believe that, if I am building on something that has been written in another article (to which there had been a redirect), then I will be honest about it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geof Sheppard
When I look at Hayle, possibly taking 5 lines of existing text that was added maybe 11 years ago, and creating a whole new individual page of 5,811 bytes, in my view, is creating a new page. Even in your own words, "replace redirect with full article"??? But if you wish to leave it as expanded redirect??? it's what you choose, so there we go! I'll leave it well alone.
While we're here, please note that I NEVER refer to any Nick Leach book on a matter of principle, and I would really rather you didn't add any Nick Leach citations to anything I create.
Also, just so you are clear that I have respect for what other folks create and don't just jump in, maybe you would like to revisit Abersoch. With confirmation from RNLI Heritage Team, Abersoch has always been Abersoch Lifeboat Station, regardless of location, and has never at any time been known as Penrhyndhu Lifeboat Station.
Martin Ojsyork (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I wish to put it to the group, that we should change the name of the group to the Lifeboat Task Force, rather than it being RNLI Task Force.

This is in light of recent comments that folks from the RNLI Task Force shouldn't be being involved with Independent Pages. In reality, I would like to think we are an impartial group, just wishing to document info correctly, and are not out to reinforce any kind of division - in fact, the very opposite. This may also encourage some "Independently" minded other editors to join. Your comments please...

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I asked a question at the Help Desk here in case this proposal develops. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The stories of independent stations and RNLI stations are so often intertwined that I can't see any reason for treating them differently. Should we also have a discussion about whether this task force are best placed in the Water Sports or the Ships project? Some independent lifeboat articles are already tagged as being relevant to our task force; some are just in the Water Sports project but no task force; others are just in the Ships project. We should also be careful about the name and scope. If we became the 'Lifeboat Task Force' then that implies world-wide scope. Is that what we want, or do we need a name with a geographical restriction? British and Irish Lifeboat Task Force, or something like that?
As an aside, you don't have to be a project member to edit a page, so as long as our edits are balanced, no one can complain about someone in this task force editing an independent lifeboat page. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a caveat – Ideally, I think the best solution would be to make a new "WikiProject Lifeboats" and then move this task force under that. A new "Independent lifeboat station task force" could then be created if there was enough interest; if not, they would still be covered by the Lifeboats WikiProject and we wouldn't lose any of the work that's gone into categorising RNLI specific articles. I would happily take care of any template changes and administration required for this change. Aluxosm (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a month to think about this proposal, so what are we going to do? There seems to be a consensus to change the name, to 'Lifeboat Task Force' provided we are happy to have a world-wide scope.

There is an unresolved question about the project. While I would not oppose a new 'Lifeboats Project', the task force guidance cautions about projects with few members and suggests they are best as task forces. As for which project we are best aligned with, Water Sports seems odd as its scope is 'Every subject that involves sport, games or other activities in conjunction with (under, on or over) water.' I don't regard lifeboats as a sport! The Ships project says that 'civilian ships that are under 100 ft (30 m) in length' are out of scope (by civilian they seem to mean non-military). The banner at the top of this talk page suggest that the Maritime task force in the Transport project have an interest in our work. I'm not sure that lifeboats easily fit into their project scope but I don't think would be worse than the fit to water sports.

Whatever we decide, we should notify the Water Sports project and any other projects that might have an interest or view on the change. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geof Sheppard - while I have supported the idea of including non-RNLI lifeboats, I do not have the necessary ability to set up (or maintain) a separate Lifeboat Task Force. If no one else is willing, can we not just change Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force to Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/UK and Ireland lifeboat task force (does a simple page move do this?). I'm not sure expanding it beyond UK and Ireland is going to be helpful or of interest to many editors (though I could be wrong!). Although lifeboats are not a sport, there is a link with Water sports, since many lifeboat call-outs are to people enjoying water sports but getting into difficulties while doing so. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed (don't know why I haven't before) that Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports has a "defunct" notice on it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Water_sports/RNLI_task_force
Marcações: