Talk:Girl Pat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGirl Pat is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
February 14, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 22, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Overstatement?[edit]

The emphatic "there is no public record of her subsequent history" in the Aftermath section doesn't to my ear gel with the source's (6-year old) less dogmatic "Nothing seems to be known of her after that". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Given that there's no other subject called "Girl Pat" on Wikipedia, the parentheses serves no disambiguation purpose. Cúchullain t/c 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Girl Pat (1935 trawler) → Girl Pat – In a quick search I couldn't find another trawler or topic sharing the name. Also, Girl Pat already redirects here. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per above. wctaiwan (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The longer title was chosen for two reasons: first, to clarify for the casual reader that this article was about a boat, not a girl, a film, book or video etc.; secondly, because there have been other vessels with the same name, and although none have yet acquired a WP article, confusion or uncertainty could arise from the shorter title. Is there any real disadvantage in letting the existing title stand? Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagined that, but WP:Disambiguation must be justified with tangible evidence its ambiguity will be troublesome in general (not only for casual readers). If the first reason is "they may think it is about something else", Paris would be at Paris, France, America at America (disambiguation) or Titanic at Titanic (disambiguation), as they all are ambiguous titles that anyone "may think it is about something else". For the second reason, if there are other topics, including trawlers, you have to create Girl Pat as a disambiguation page. But if this is the only blue link with that name, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still apply. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "ambiguous" examples that you cite are all extremely well known names which don't warrant further description; it is extremely unlikely that people will be confused by them. Girl Pat is not well known generally, and I believe the extended title may be helpful. I repeat: is there any real disadvantage in letting the existing title stand? Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering America was originally a disambiguation page until 2015, and it took at least 3 RMs, it is not an extremely well-known name. Also, disambiguation is not added because the subject is obscure in general, refer to Toil. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Brianboulton. Just yesterday I wanted to read the article about a woman named Viola (looking for women nominated for DYK in women's history month), only to find out it was about a band of male performers. When we can be clear about what something is, why not have it? How is - for a compromise - Girl Pat (trawler)? In case another trawler makes it to article, that one could get the year to distinguish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then go to Talk:Viola and request a move. BTW, Viola is an instrument, not a band of male performers (I guess you are talking about Viola Beach). Also, the instrument is the WP:PTOPIC for that name, not the given name. Girl Pat, on the other hand, has no other use aside from the trawler. Brian mentioned there are other uses, but never cited which are them. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Girl Pat is a very odd construction as you might see only in ship names, so I highly doubt any other subject by this title exists, and none are on Wikipedia. —innotata 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IMHO the title is fine as it stands, when using web based searches the short description is clearly not enough to distinguish the subject. The addition of date and a descriptor in the title of the article does it for me! HJKeats (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to WP:Disambiguation to fully understand why disambiguation is used. A hint, it is not used solely for descriptive purposes as you mention. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the oppose votes seem to be ignorant of what disambiguation is for. It is not for telling readers what the topic is about; that is the purpose of the article. Since there is no other topic named "Girl Pat" on Wikipedia, disambiguation is unnecessary. sst✈ 11:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be a little careful of accusing other editors of ignorance. The issue here is not about disambiguation – there is nothing to disambiguate. It is about having an article title that is sufficiently descriptive of the subject to inform readers what the article is about. That seems to be more important than this obsession with applying an interpretation of the rules that would, in the end, bring no advantage whatever. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ignorance: The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lack of knowledge or information." Although the word "ignorant" is commonly used as an attack, in this case it seems to be correctly used. Disambiguation is not used for descriptive purposes, it is used, and I cite, because it "is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous." Yourself are acknowledge there is nothing to disambiguate, therefore, there is no valid usage of disambiguation. If you still considering disambiguation must be used for descriptive purposes, create a consensus at WT:DAB. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand Brian correctly, he means that the title is not an example of disambiguation. Instead it is just a clarification of the topic. That means that this discussion is not about disambiguation but about correct article naming. I think the parentheses in the title are confusing the discussion. It might still be the case that the article should be moved to Girl Pat, but the relevant policy or guideline isn't WP:DAB. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An example might make it clearer what I'm trying to say. The liner RMS Queen Mary is at that article title, presumably because that's in some sense the "official" name of the ship. However, nobody ever called it that; it was always referred to as "The Queen Mary". The choice between "Queen Mary" and "RMS Queen Mary" isn't a disambiguation choice, it's a naming choice; but it has the happy side-effect of making it clear that this is an article about a ship. Something similar, if such a title exists, would be ideal for this article. I'm not sure if such a title exists, and personally I don't think it would be that harmful to move it to Girl Pat, but I can see why other commenters would like to find a title like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no ambiguity, and no argument has been presented as to why the disambiguation is necessary. —innotata 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Great article[edit]

This is the most interesting featured article I've seen in a long time, great work by the creator(s) and reviewer(s). Blowing my own horn a bit, but anyone with an interest in maritime adventures should check out the article on Ben Carlin – currently only a good article (not quite as polished as this one), but a similar amount of detail. (Any copy-editing would be appreciated). IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. The Carlin story looks fascinating – completely new to me – and I'll make sure I read it and perhaps add comments. I'm very pressed for time at present, but I'll put it on my "to do" list, for when things ease up a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pat or Patrick?[edit]

The infobox gives the name of the boat in the 1930s as Girl Patrick, but this is completely unsourced as far I can see, and wouldn't make much sense as the name of a ship. Is it a wiki prank or from some kind of fringe source? 83.251.170.27 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably vandalism. I've reverted the edit. Thanks for pointing it out. wctaiwan (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No map?[edit]

Seems like a map would be a nice addition to the article. I'm surprised it doesn't have one. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no mapmaker, but if anyone has the time and inclination I'd be happy to assist with details. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of the world's press"[edit]

Is this hyperbole? There's an awful lot of press in the world, even back then. Brutannica (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point - modified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Girl Pat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Girl_Pat&oldid=1207430064"