Talk:Color Line (ferry operator)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Color Line (ferry operator). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704155303/http://www.colorline.com/servlets/page?section=4015 to http://www.colorline.com/servlets/page?section=4015&item=27183

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Tonnage

This is mainly directed at User:Lyndaship, though of course anyone can join in. Naturally reversion is a valid practice, but you have erased over an hour's work with a mouse-click. There would be no problem if it was bad work, but I contend it wasn't, even if some of it might after discussion be agreed to be unnecessary. You made several points; I'll try to address them all:

1. I "introduced errors re GRT/GT"

This was the main purpose of the edit and I can assure you there are no errors. A good many ship pages refer to grt for ships built after 1982 or operating after 1994. Ships built before 1982 but operating after 1994 often show grt when the tonnage shown is actually the tonnage after remeasurement. I've changed the tonnage in these cases and left it alone where it couldn't be shown to be the new gt measurement.

1. "there were two different Jupiters"

Fair enough. It seemed odd to have two of the same name in the fleet at almost the same time, and I couldn't find evidence of the first. I hoped that if my assumption of a duplicate was wrong then another user could re-insert it without reverting the whole edit.

1. "red links desirable"

This is a bit of a grey area. Some of the pages linked do not seem to have existed or have any prospect of existing. To be fair, others probably will exist so the red should be retained. (I don't like the look of them so I'm probably too keen to remove them. Having checked the policy, I agree that they should stay.)

1. "not overlinked - different sections"

MOS:LINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". If the link is in the table, there is seldom any point putting it in the text, where it hinders readability.

1. "useful to differentiate between HSC and MS especially if red link"

I tend to leave out or remove 'MS', 'MV', etc, as these are not part of a ship's name. HSC often is part of the name so of course should be retained. Removing 'MS' helps prevent confusion as to what is and isn't part of a ship's name. I try to be consistent: Wikipedia tends to use MV/MS in bold on first reference; but I can't guarantee such consistency.

Like I said, I put a lot of work into correcting the tonnage. I don't think that should be jettisoned for the sake of a few dead links and one error. Patrick Neylan (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion. I could see that there was likely to be some good work in your edit but from that which I checked I found an error (Jupiter) and the removal of red links which you now accept should stay and seemed to constitute the majority of the edit so I felt it best to revert in toto. I now accept your assurance that all GRT/GT figures are correct, I had seen your edit summary on other articles stating you may have got some pre 82 ones wrong and thought it also applied here. The two Jupiters were verifiable from the dates in the links and Miramar, I felt as an experienced and knowledgeable editor you should have checked before removing. I will accept your point on overlinking but disagree with the policy! I agree ship prefixes are not part of the name (never seen a HSC which is either) but they are useful sometimes for dab purposes. I would only have reverted the edits concerning Jupiter and red links if you had done them separately. Lyndaship (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's have another crack at it. Removing the links might have looked like "the majority of the edit" but it was a matter of moments; it was checking the tonnages that took the time. Admitting I might have got some wrong elsewhere was a couple of instances of 1981-built vessels where grt was possible but highly unlikely.

I didn't check Miramar as it's not as reliable as Wikipedians seem to think it is. Of course the definitive source is IHS, but I don't have access to that database any more (I worked there till 2008).

I've restored most of the links except in the paragraph on the 2000s fleet upgrades, where links to the ships are in a small table very close by for any reader to see. I think links in tables are better than in text, though that's a subjective opinion. But I've kept the town names linked in the lede and the table for consistency's sake.

I've also reinstated the changes to the 2020 statuses. The phrase "Since 2007" implies that this is still the case, when it seldom is (and this isn't the place for constant updates on a ship's later history). Patrick Neylan (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)