Jump to content

Talk:Francop Affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Operation Four Species)


}}

Katyushas?

[edit]

There is no "107-mm" Katyusha rocket. The rockets on the ship appear to have been 107 mm Type 63 rockets from China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.31.164 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of MV Francop into this article

[edit]

The proposer of the merger has not provided any rationale here for the proposal. However, I oppose the merger. The ship is notable enough to sustain an article of its own, and would have been if the incident hadn't occurred. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar. This is bordering on news event only. The ship is definitely NN (nothing shows otherwise), and this event is so far just a single event, unles it can be tied to the ship seized by Yemen now. I saw delete both, move to a paragraph somewhere if anything develops out of this. --Shuki (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this operation is notable historical event, see also Operation Noah's Ark Marokwitz (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ships generally meet WP:N through coverage by websites such as Miramar Ship index, Fakta om Fartyg, Det Norske Veritas etc. Even though no article had been written until the ship was detained, there would still have been enough verifiable information to write an article of at least C class on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with USS Liberty (AGTR-5), there should be an article on the ship, dealing with the ship characteristics and a brief discussion of the incident preceded by a link to a separate article on the incident. Cf. HMS Bounty; vessels used in voyages of exploration are often handled that way as well. That will also avoid the confusion of two infoboxes. Kablammo (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military ships are a bit more significant than NN medium size generic container carriers which number in the thousands if not more around the world. --Shuki (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ship is a generic freighter. It has ABSOLUTELY NO notability except in the context of this military operation. I vote for it to be merged immediately.ShamWow (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the detail regarding the operation should be placed in the article devoted to that operation (which now looks to be shorter than the separate section within the ship article). But a separate article on the ship is still warranted. In any event there is no need to do anything immediately (after less than 10 hours of discussion); let's wait for consensus to develop. Kablammo (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ShamWow, if you feel that this ship has absolutely no notability other than the incident, why not propose it at WP:AfD? I for one am confident that it will survive an AfD debate. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, AFD is pointless and a merge is inevitable. The argument is what is merged into what. one article into the other, or both into United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. I posted it onto the WP:ISRAEL page to generate more traffic. I also remind you, only 10 hours have gone by. First I suggest some structure. to follow. --Shuki (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francop should be merged into Operation Four Species, which should be be kept as its own article. In coverage of the incident, there has been barely any mention of UNSCR 1701, but it surely deserves to be included in that article.ShamWow (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few examples of treatment elsewhere.

Piracy off Somalia

In other cases, there typically is an article for the ship, where the incident also is described.

Voyages of exploration

Once a ship achieves notablity, an article on that vessel typically will appear. That article contains an infobox, giving ownership and technical data on the ship. Often a separate article on the incident will appear; and each article links to the other. Folks interested in ships can follow the link to the ship article; those interested only in the incident need not do so. And the interests of all are served. Kablammo (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - Notability as understood for ships is not a problem here, see countless articles on ships of this size, whatever their type. The event it has been caught up in merely adds further notability to this ship and her career, as with MV Maersk Alabama, MV Danica White, Carré d'As IV, MV Golden Nori, MV Faina, MV Delight, MV Stolt Strength, etc, etc. No opinion on what should be done with the Operation Four Species article, but no justification for a merge has been made other than saying that articles on merchant ships are non-notable - 'The ship is a generic freighter. It has ABSOLUTELY NO notability' - which is an opinion, not a reason. This is all the more flawed since by the media attention and coverage of this international incident, the ship has become especially notable. Benea (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article on the ship is very short, I suggest making the ship a section UNTIL it becomes well "articleified", and then the ship section in this article can be condensed and the ship article can be restored. Hamtechperson Repeater 16:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons set forth above. A separate article on the vessel comports with prior practice. Given how incidents have been handled, an article on the incident is also merited. Kablammo (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I don't see how the MV Francop article adds value to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but on things that are notable. It seems that the Operation Four Species would clearly encompass basically all of the information in the ship's article. It is also doubtful that most people know the name of this operation. Instead, they would search for the name of the ship and be directed to the wrong article. That does not seem like a desired outcome.ShamWow (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article on a similar seizure of Iranian weapons the high seas is titled by the operation name (Operation Noah's Ark), rather than by the name of ship, the Karine A, which redirects to the operations page. There should be consistency between the articles of these two similar military operations.ShamWow (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there should be consistency. MV Karine A article needs creating. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kablammo has given a long list of articles which if anything indicate that if consistency is to be achieved, the ship article should be created, not merged into an article on one event the ship took part in. Benea (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Benea. IMO, the Somali hijacked ship articles are fascinating in that they are all not worthy of separate articles and should be merged into one list. Don't we know that the hijackings are a dime a dozen in the last couple of years? Not that I'm into going after justice, but I would open an AfD merge of all in one yearly article - ex: 2008 maritime hijackings. --Shuki (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There again is this 'they are all not worthy of separate articles' opinion. I could add to the list SS Empire Bison, SS Lokoja Palm, MV Target, SS Hewsang, PS Monarch, MS Femund II, SS Stanbell, MV Western Lady III, MV Devonair Belle, MV Athelqueen (1942), etc, with no connection whatsoever with Somalian hijackings. Open a collective AFD if you feel so inclined. Otherwise this is still just your opinion, which is not reflected by long-standing consensus with regards to merchant ships of whatever type and use. Benea (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this article even be known by the name of the Israeli operation to seize the ship? It's doubtful that many outside of Israel know that the operation went by this name. Could it make more sense to call the article the "MV Francop Affair"? And "Operation Noah's Ark" as the "Karine A Affair"? I don't feel that strongly on this issue, just something to consider. "Operation Four Species" is pretty obscure.ShamWow (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger; ships are generally considered to have automatic notability. Following Shuki's and Shamwow's logic, SS Minnesotan, an FA, is just another "generic freighter" and doesn't merit an article. You could extend that line of reasoning to any one of the Wickes class destroyers; the USN built 111 of them, surely they're just as generic as Francop or Karina A. As for the issue of this article's name, I'd suggest something other than the current title. All of the international media cited in the article (BBC, AP, etc.) don't use the operation name. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In jest, it seems like the opposition here belongs to the crazy cult that is Wikiproject ships. Back to the argument, the SS Minnesotan, given its lengthy history, is clearly more notable than the MV Francop. If you guys are really that bored and desperately searching for something to add to Wikiproject ships, knock yourself out. But it really seems to add little value to Wikipedia and is a serious overstretch.ShamWow (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ShamWow, you seem to have got it. WPSHIPS considers the ship notable, WPIsrael doesn't. How about we agree to differ? Hopefully Francop has another 20 years or so ahead of her yet. I'd say the real issue here is how much to mention of Operation Four Seasons in the article about the ship, and whether or not that article should be a stand-alone article. I have no strong opinion on either of those arguements. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree to that. Keep the MV Francop article as well as this article, which may potentially be renamed to the MV Francop Affair. I think the MV Francop article should not go to deeply into the details of the military operation, in order not to interfere with the main article on it.ShamWow (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, looks like peace could be about to break out. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has yet to produce any acceptable/accepted guideline for judging the notability of ships. I stand by my comment about the Somali hijackings, and certainly SS Minnesotan is a bad example cuz it is definitely notable. Not to insult anyone on WP:SHIPS, but there are many articles in Category:Container ships that are orphans, and others that would otherwise be orphans are linked to user pages. Above the orphans, we have other ships that are clearly WP:ONEVENT. Is one event enough to make a container ship notable? As for the name of the operation, Shamwow, I think that I might agree. Maybe that name is legitimate on the Israeli WP, but then again, I do not know policy of WP:MILITARY for naming articles and perhaps they should be consulted. --Shuki (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the production of guidelines for the notability of ships. It still clearly falls under WP:ONEEVENT, despite talk hope that "Francop has another 20 years or so ahead of her yet." Ultimately though, I'm getting tired of this marginal debate.ShamWow (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied at WT:SHIPS re notability of ships. The military project you mean is WP:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just end this already. Keep the MV Francop article, but will have to have a disclaimer at the top redirecting users to the Operation Four Species/MV Francop Affair. I believe it will also be appropriate to change the article name to the MV Francop Affair.ShamWow (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that proposal in principle, the arms seizure can be paraphrased in the MV Francop article, with a {{main}} header in that section. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the MV Francop's history revolves around this operation, I would argue that the header needs to be at the top of page. E.g. For the MV Francop Affair see...
It's time to put this to bed. Move the O4S article, and add a hatnote to the MV Francop article. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

[edit]

See discussion above. Should article be renamed the MV Francop Affair or the Francop Affair? And by the naming conventions, would affair be capitalized or lower-case? Other ideas welcome.ShamWow (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francop Affair would be a good title. Capitalized as it's a Proper Noun phrase, like Operation Four Species. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francop Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francop_Affair&oldid=1212562919"