Talk:No. 1 (yacht)

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Germany may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

notability tag

Question for M4gnum0n, now you added the speedy delete tag on 15 January 2008 doesn't indicate significance. which was despeedyd, page's subject matter is not covered by A7; use prod or AfD instead by Ais523, on 16 January 2008 you added the PROD template for deletion, to make it more clear, i added the first zero emissions yacht in the world, bit now this new deletion template. {{nn|date=January 2008}}, doesn't make sense to me, its not an article about Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, or Web content, or a proposal for new guidelines. However the template is suggesting the article should be deleted or merged, so what is it exactly that you think is not referenced ? Cheers Mion (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability guidelines, you need to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources by providing more references. Right now there's only one reference and it's not clear that it's a reliable source. That's what the notability template is about. You also need to provide a citation for the claim that it's the first zero emissions yacht in the world. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to assume good faith, that is what the spirit of a free encyclopedia is about, i think, i added a link. Cheers Mion (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about bad faith? I'm just trying to let you know what other editors are going to be concerned about. Jfire (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't answer my question to M4gnum0n, your just popping a general link about notability link in which is not also not helping, i referenced it with two links, which seems to be not enough for you, and now you'r saying other editors might think....., let the other editors speak for themself, like M4gnum0n, i am still wondering what his point was. Mion (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nn tag isn't a deletion tag, just a request for a reliable source that covers the subject. Being a template it's pretty general, so it doesn't cover this article's category, but the concept applies nonetheless: if such source cannot be found, the article should be deleted or merged. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering your question. The template that was added ({{nn|date=January 2008}}) is an indication that M4gnum0n did not believe the article satisfied Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The way you would address that concern is by demonstrating significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I also gave you a specific example of a statement that needed to be referenced ("first zero emissions yacht in the world"). Jfire (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, M4gnum0n, tried to get it speedy deleted, than a PROD tag, than a Notabilty tag, what bottered me, is that he didn't react on his or this talkpage sofar, and for sure, he didn't search for more info on the subject, now, i spent 1,5 hour or more on an article, so thats why i am interested in why somebody just kicks in, and want to delete it without having any knowledge on the subject, thats 1, the next one is, why would you, or why are defending his action ..... Mion (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending his action (though I think his concern about notability was understandable) -- I'm trying to help you. If you'll notice, I've been editing the article, adding content, adding references, and now I've removed the notability tag, since I think there are now enough references to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i removed the fuel cell company name, there is a whole history on the fuel cell pages about companies that want to be named. Cheers. Mion (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Power Systems

Can you explain in more detail why you removed that part? Ballard Power Systems is mentioned in several of the references, it seems like it should be included. Jfire (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version shows, [[1]] that the section starts to look like an advertising section, and the point is describing the dimensions of the part is enough, this discussion is about notability, by adding 3 company names it might be questiond as advertising like with this article ,Speedy deletion of Homefueler, so thats why i dont mention names anymore, and i think its correct as wel, many other companys are able to supply this item.Mion (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that there are a lot of external links in that revision, but I don't think that a spam concern applies here because we are linking to the wikipedia article and not the company website and BPC is specifically mentioned by name in three of the cited sources [2][3][4]. The fact that the vessel is fuel-cell powered is what makes it notable, so it makes sense to mention the cell's manufacturers. It's just a little bit extra for an already-short article. And no, it isn't going to make the article more likely to be deleted, if that's what you are worried about. Hopefully you can agree that it should be restored? Jfire (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No , i don't agree, company name pushing showed up several times in the link on fuel cell, and at most of the pages in the [[Category:Fuel cells]], and if we do it on this page, we have to do it on all the pages (beeing consequent), and if people are interested they can read the external links, the links i took are the most neutral, if you google on it most links are blatant advertising links. Cheers. Mion (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "company name pushing" by adding links to a company website to a bunch of tangentially related articles and adding a link that is on topic, in context, and cited to reliable sources to a single article. Do you see the difference? I have no affiliation with BPC or any other fuel cell company whatsoever; I stumbled on this article by chance. BPC belongs in the article because it has a clear and most importantly citable connection with the subject of this article -- they manufactured the fuel cells used by it. For example, "The standard fuel-cell stacks fitted aboard "No.1" were manufactured by Ballard Power Systems" ([5]), "stack supplied by Ballard" ([6]). Jfire (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know you're not from the company, thing is by not mentioning company names if it is not necessary , we prevent a lot of work on all the pages to clean out the advertising race on wikipedia, like on fuel cell between UTC power and Ballard. and it adds nothing, we know that it is a PEM fuel cell and how much kW, any company can make such a fuel cell, so its not worth to mention. Mion (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find a source that says the No. 1 uses generic cells or cells made by some other company, then I could see your argument, but mutiple sources cited say very specifically that BPC made the ones used the the No. 1. Wikipedia is a tertiary reference; we report what other reliable sources say, not what we know or are familiar with personally. Maybe you could bring in some other editors who are familiar with similar articles and see what they think? Jfire (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn,t say the fuel cells are generic, thats what you are making up now, i said there is nothing notable about Ballard making them, except advertising the company name, now you are pushing this company name, i suggest that you search some other editors to support your claim.Mion (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the references to Ballard are too commercial and that information from a manufacturer is not independent - Ballard has a big interest in pushing hydrogen technologies, regardless of whether they actually have more potential to reduce greenhouse emissions than other green technologies. That's why I would rather remove references to Ballard in the Hydrogen vehicle article.

Zero emissions

By the way, this is not a zero-emission yacht, unless the hydrogen in the fuel cell is produced using only renewable energy sources. Even so, the manufacture of the fuel cells requires energy and creates emissions. The closest thing to a zero-emission yacht is a sailboat that uses only solar energy to run a small electric motor for docking. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This yacht is fueled with an mobile hydrogen fueling station, from which is unknown how the hydrogen was produced, still the yacht itself has no emission - ever.Mion (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every yacht has an engine for manoeuvring in the harbor, you're not allowed to enter the harbor without, maybe it goes for a smaller sailboat. Mion (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, from reading yacht, it's clear that not all yachts have engines. And of course, as a type of ship that predates the internal combustion engine, historically most yachts have not had engines. It could probably be claimed that the No. 1 is the first fuel-cell powered yacht, although that would need a citation. Jfire (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche, i am speechless. Mion (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC):[reply]

Turns out we do have a source that says that, so I put it in as what makes this boat notable. Jfire (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Mion (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the advertising for beneteau, its the same issue as with Ballard. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a boat; it is relevant where the components came from. Revert again and you will be in violation of 3RR. Jfire (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion before about Ballard, there is nothing notable about who delivered the boat, any shipyard could deliver such boat, so as long as we dont have consensus about it, it should stay on the talkpage, until a third editor expresses his opinion about it. Same as before ? Mion (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for more input at WP:WikiProject Ships. Please let it stand until we reach consensus. Jfire (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nicely neutral asked, fine with me, cheers Mion (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with leaving out the manufacturer of the components, I believe that info should only be included if the ship is specifically built for prototype/testbed use of those components, and if secondary reliable sources report it as such.
However, it is okay to list the builder (and the yard & city) which did the primary construction of the ship, as that's standard information placed in the ship infobox used by WP:SHIPS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the input. Would the yard in this case would be Bénéteau or MTU? Jfire (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mion, I would say that the BPS components (but not the hull) qualifies as "prototype/testbed use of those components", so should be included per Barek. Jfire (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the BPS is a series produced item, nothing new. Mion (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say to leave out the component manufacturer. In this case, it's a special purpose use of an existing technology - so not really a prototype fuel cell, just a prototype use of fuel cells (more generic, possible from any manufacturer).

For shipyard, from an initial scan of one of the sources, it appears to be Bénéteau shipyard. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll leave it without BPS, with Bénéteau (in infobox). Jfire (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shipyard

According to the Beneteau link, there are no Beneteau shipyards in Germany, any idears how to solve it ?Mion (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source says it was "built by the Bénéteau shipyard in France". I'll cite it. Jfire (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that was the original ship, however it was converted somewhere in Germany , ?? near the town of Reilingen in the north, under supervision of the German power station operator IPF [7], as the lake is on the Rhine between Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. (not France), the article isn't conclusive, but maybe you're right. Mion (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shipyard Speedwave, Kressbronn, [8]. Mion (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! It appears you speak Dutch, can you give a better translation of "Later sloot ook scheepswerf Speedwave uit Kressbronn bij de Bodensee zich aan voor alle scheepstechnische verbouwingen en verrichtte de Universiteit van Magdeburg het nodige denkwerk." Thanks, Jfire (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a late stadium the shipyard Speedwave from Kressbronn joint for the conversion under supervision of the University of Magdeburg.

Now, that makes the original statement, the hull from the Beneteau was used which makes it a component, however, i am not familiar with how that is handled within the wiki ship project /the template, maybe they mention both. Mion (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug deeply into the references, and likely won't have time for a while ... but there are two basic interpretations ... either it was built (completed) at Speedwave shipyard ... or the ship was built at one shipyard, then refit at the second. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're stuck, the first is true, the second we don't know, and a quick scan doesn't say much [9][[10]Mion (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would say go with the one we know for now (built at Speedwave shipyard), expanding the information should additional sources clarify it later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]