Talk:Kanimbla (ferry)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Australia: Sydney / Maritime / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Kanimbla (ferry) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Split?[edit]

Could this be split into separate articles for each ship, please? It looks like there is plenty of content for two separate articles, but having the two ships combined makes it difficult to read the article (it jumps from one ship to the other frequently). Pinging @Merbabu: as article creator. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two are one of 25-ish Sydney K-class ferries. I am slowly trying to present them in articles. Within the "class" there are pairs of ferries, and perhaps a triplet or two. I thought that combining the pairs would be a good way to keep similar boats together. And perhaps strengthen any case against questions of notability and therefore deletion. Perhaps though with these two, the similarities aren't as close as others - they are not the same builder for example, and one did not last as long as the other...in contrast to these two: Karingal and Karrabee.

my preference would be to keep them as pairs where their stories are close, but in this case, the argument is perhaps weaker than for other pairs. (indeed, I'm slowly putting together another article on Kirribilli and Kurraba in my sandbox. --Merbabu (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Merbabu: Nice work! I've been coming across your K-class articles every so often while working on enwp/Wikidata/Commons links, and it's been nice to see them. I understand the notability concerns, but I still think having separate articles on each ship would be better and easier to read - but it's up to you as the person that's working on them! I'm going to mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to see what others think, if that's OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for individual vessel articles and, if you just can't generate enough content to support one, include it in the class article. Tupsumato (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Comment from creator: @Mike Peel and Tupsumato: The case for this keeping these two together might be weaker (different builder, different careers, etc), but perhaps Karingal and Karrabee and Kirrule-type ferry work together as cohesive story and articles. --Merbabu (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the page could be re-written, to separate out any ship-specific content into individual sections, then this could very well work as a single article, as it is only 2 ships and has just 10kB of content. There are other such ship/class-type single page articles. Splitting could mean either two very small pages, or a lot of needless duplication. - wolf 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: and others - I'm happy for the article to be split. On the other hand, I have to ration my time on Wikipedia. I'm currently working on another K-Class article in my sandbox (don't worry - just a single boat for this article ;) ), so I will get around to the split one day. Unless, someone else wants to do the split, and I can check the results? regards, --Merbabu (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: and others - I've made the split. Hope it's good. Now just tidying up links from other pages. --Merbabu (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Merbabu: That looks good, thanks! Do we need this page now, or could it be redirected to K-class or one of the articles, or deleted, once you've finished clearing up links? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: - now that I've gone through all the "what links here", I guess the page and talk page are no longer needed. Unless it's needed for the record? I don't mind either way. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Merbabu: I moved the discussion here, and redirected the old page here (as the first-named in the title), is that OK? Or if you prefer, I can delete the old page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]