Talk:List of active Pakistan Navy ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Cleaned up tables in order to bring them more inline with the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAG, MOS:TABLES and MOS:LIST. They were pretty awful beforehand. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 October 2017[edit]

Trying to make updates to Pakistan Navy's Informational page for Ships and asset some moron with name Adamgerber80(Indian fella) keeps deleting the information I addded and I have been adding at least 2-3 news credible links and I am a Avid follower of Pakistan Navy

Need access to the page so I can update the page with Latest informational DATA

And STOP making Indians moderators of Pakistan navy's Page

I spent good old Saturday and Sunday to update Pakistan Navy's asset list to best of my knowledge


Like I don't get it what is the problem with that Adamgerber80 fell pissed the fuck out of me

Sky1two (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have explained to you before in the edit messages and left messages on your talk page which you removed. First, this is a page for List of Active Pakistani Navy ships not ships under construction/future ships/ships on order. Second, all the images you added have copy-right violations and have thus been deleted from Wikimedia commons. You are more than welcome to contribute to the page but please add only those ships which have been commissioned into service with reliable sources. Lastly, I am not a moderator of this page just another fellow editor. Please be careful with your words and stop viewing editors with the prism of their nationality. The page has been currently protected. If you wish to make an edit, please make an edit request here with the corresponding sources and an administrator will evaluate your request and update the page accordingly. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: please respond to comments made — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Guy Keeps deleting Ships and sourcces I qouted from Newspaper and Defence Journals this guy has no clue how to be moderator on a Navy Web page if he is Indian he should be doing the edits on Indian Navy's website why is he constantly deleting correct accurate date on ships and boats

Thank you !!!!

STOP DELETING because it is reducing the information about Pakistan Navy's assets

I have explained this multiple times and I will reiterate. First, the images you are uploading are copy-right violations and thus were deleted from Wikimedia Commons. You uploaded them again under false claims and they have been nominated for deletion. You have already been blocked for this from Wikimedia commons and doing this here might earn you a block on English Wikipedia as well. Second, this the page for Active Navy Ships which means ships that have been commissioned and in service with the Pakistani Navy. The content you are repeatedly adding is potential ships or ships under construction which is beyond the scope of this page. Do not engage in disruptive editing but build consensus before you contribute. Please edit accordingly and constructively. Lastly, I am not a moderator but another editor who contributes and watches over the page. My nationality is not an issue here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sky1two wrote: "if he is Indian he should be doing the edits on Indian Navy's website". This is English Wikipedia, all that's required is competence with the English language to edit any Wikipedia article. You do not edit based on nationality. Considering you obviously have a reading comprehension problem, as you clearly fail to understand why your edits are being reverted, then I don't think English Wikipedia is for you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop deleteing the page !!!! Adamgerber80 Stop deleting the data Adamgerber80

The page is outdated missing latest orders The page is missing ships inducted in Pakistan Navy And I have provided source examples from National Newspapers of Pakistan, and also International defence journals

I have provided correct data with correct reference to the addition review the sources I have provided in detail for the Pakistan Navy purchase , and recent announcement I don't understand why the page is outdate to what the status was in 2004-2006

So please do every one a favor and stop discouraging contributors who want to keep the page updated with Latest Data

> Recently Pakistan Navy's Martine time department inducted 10 ships I provided the information for these correct reference ships came from USA, China > Recently Pakistan Navy/Dutch companies did a contract for 2 Large Ocean OPV I provided the updated with links from Pakistan and Dutch sources. > China-Pakisan , extended the 8 Submarine orders with undisclosed number of frigate it was announced in retirement ceremony of the cheif of naval staff in a Live Speech > I provided updated link to Pakistan Navy's Dedicated Aviation Fleet , correct link (again deleted from page) > I provided updated on Local Production of Stealth Missile boat with reference to another ship in process of induction information deleted > Turkey /Pakistan concluded MOU to induct corvettes from Turkey I provided updated reference and links to the news paper links

Also where is the data on 8 Submarines being manufactured for Pakistan navy

Typically as fans for Navy the folks who have information we like to keep pages updated with data updates as new new emerge not sure what is the point of keeping data "STALE"

"Confirmed orders" with newslink being in process of realization are clearly marked as Under Construction Sky1two (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The point made by Adamgerber80 is that this article is for active ships. If they are under construction then they are not yet active. Do you agree? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 October 2017[edit]

Revert the major content removal just before the page was protected. Balaaj Khatab (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see the comments above. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 keeps deleting data on new Ships introduced in Pakistan navy He keeps deleting dad on 2 sources I keep providing per addition to validate the purchase/induction He keep reverting the data back to what it was like in 2007-2008


This page is based on the format used on these articles

The origin box is redundant for this page see other articles

Mentioning origin in page[edit]

Hi Kravnagh, There are some pages in Wikipedia which list origin and some others don't. There is no set policy on what it should have as long the content is reliably sourced. Can you please explain your rationale on removing the origin column. Since it is perfectly valid as per Wikipedia policy? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi i have mentioned above it is not necessary information for this specific page. Kravnagh (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many other pages(more than you provided) which do for example: List of active Indonesian Navy ships, List_of_active_Hellenic_Navy_ships, List of active Finnish Navy ships, List of active Royal Danish Navy ships, List of active Royal Netherlands Navy ships, List of ships of the Egyptian Navy, List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy, Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Navy, List of active Indian Navy ships, List of ships of the Brazilian Navy, List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Navy, Nigerian_Navy#Nigerian_Navy_Fleet, Royal_Brunei_Navy#Current_fleet.
Here is the list of pages which do. So please provide me a RfC or a policy which states that it should not be included. Also in your comment you mentioned that this is original research. Can you please explain? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This page does not use the same table boxes as those pages. it uses the same as i mentioned above, the ones you mentioned also add shipbuildier, year of entered service, armament and lots of others. That kinds of information is redundant for this specific page. 02:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not still answering my question. Is there an RfC or a Wikipedia policy somewhere which forbids it? This currently seems to be Wikipedia:DONTLIKE. You are not providing me a specific reason expect that some pages don't do it. There is no reason to keep sourced information out of a page as long it is within the scope of that page which this currently is. Also, that edit contained other changes. What is the rationale behind reverting that? I would strongly suggest you to go ahead and read Wikipedia policy before making arguments. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

there is also no policy that enforces it either. this page uses the same teble boxes as other related information could be added like origin, armament, shipbuilder year of entering service but its not necessary for this specific page Kravnagh (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

There is a policy which is states that as long as the information is sourced and relevant to the page. It can be added. That is how Wikipedia is built. Those pages are not templates and cannot be used as such. And even if you decided to use them as templates that was on what basis? Please provide a correct rationale for reverting that and other content in that edit which was not related to the Origin argument. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained that this information if redundant for this specific page, those pages use that table box and this one as well because they are about the same topics. Kravnagh (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How is mentioning the origin redundant here? Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Antiochus the Great, who was edited this page in the past. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I believe it would be a mistake to remove the origin column from this article, especially since Pakistan imports the majority of its naval vessels, rather than indigenous. Comparing this article to List of active French Navy ships would be a mistake, as countries like France rarely import naval vessels and therefore an origin column would be rather pointless, just to repeat "France". I agree with Adamgerber80 that Kravnagh's reason for removing the column appears to simply be WP:DONTLIKE. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It is comparable as it is about the same topic this is article is about active ships relating to class ,number of boats and type. the specific of a ship including origin or place of construction are not necessary here Kravnagh (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Antiochus the Great that it is important to show the origin column here since the Pakistan Navy imports most of its ships. Kravnagh You need to provide a better reason to keep this out because currently there is none. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason either that is not the point of the article even so most of those ships are still built locally if extra inforation should be added it can be put in the 'notes' boxKravnagh (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to provide all information regarding the current active ships with the Pakistan navy. Their origin is a part of that. There are enough ships on that page which are built in foreign shipyards or have foreign origins that the notes section will not be sufficient. You still haven't provided a credible reason to remove the content. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As i already showed many pages do not have it and also this one as there is no credible reason to hav it. the ships are mentionend and the main page of those ships have this information. i will add to notes section to clarifyKravnagh (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:DONTLIKE. What is the issue with a separate origin column? Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I already have shown the number of pages that do not have it as said it is not relevant for this page see the other pages as wellKravnagh (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been shown many pages which do. Please provide a correct rationale for this. This is simply WP:DONTLIKE. Also, do not edit disruptively. If you continue with this behavior you will be blocked. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Those use other information as well this is using the same set of table boxes as the other pagesKravnagh (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have explained to you that it does not work that way. This is not a template unlike info-boxes. So please stop arguing about the same point. Do you have a concrete reason? Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

it is not relevant for this page that informatioan is already added to the notes boxesKravnagh (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is not relevant for this page (based on Wikipedia policy) and what is the specific issue with having a separate column for origin? Please be specific and do not provide round-about answers. I have explained to you the reason that having a separate column is easier and provides better visibility to the user. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

that is opinion based, the notes box is for that purpose because its more detailed so no need to repeat same information 2timesKravnagh (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is it stated that the notes box is for that purpose? Why not add a separate column which makes it explicitly clear? This existed on the page before. What was the rationale for removing it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

it is too ambiguous .some ships are ordered some are ex-foreign navy some are partly made some are fully made locally every case is unique, that is why specific information should be added to the notes box becaus thats why its there no need to repeat same information 2 timesKravnagh (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be more specific which part of this ambiguous? AFAIK most ship classes which were in service from those countries have the origin of those countries since they were manufacture there. Ships classes which have been manufactured in China and Pakistan for example Azmat Class depict both countries. This is standard practice across ship pages on Wikipedia. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kravnagh. Your reasons for deleting the origin column thus far has been comparing this article to those of France, Spain, Italy and Japan - all of whom build the vast majority of their naval ships indigenously. As Pakistan imports the vast majority of its naval ships, this comparison is frankly invalid (and I think you know that too). So repeatedly typing "it is not relevant" because the articles of France, Spain, Italy and Japan don't have an origin column isn't going to get you anywhere. At this stage, it is obvious you have no real issue with the origin column other than your own personal preference. As I said in my edit summary, no adequate reasons given. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

the comparison is not invalid nowehere is it mentioned that is the case. the notes box is where i added that information so it is redundant mentionning it 2 timesKravnagh (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be very specific why the notes column and why not a separate origin column? What is ambiguous in it? We have provided you with enough reason and yet to hear one good reason behind your edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

each case is differnet notes box is more specifc and detailed21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How so? There are 3 cases: first manufactured in Pakistan, transferred/bought from a different country and third manufactured in both countries. And this can be clearly show using the origin column. How is this confusing? Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

already added in notes box so no need to mention again Kravnagh (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not a reason. This can be easily fixed. You are still not giving us a clear reason for removing the content? Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: Kravnagh has been blocked indefinitely as a sock — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)