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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Maritime, a collaborative effort to improve and standardise the content and structure of maritime, seafaring and inland waterways articles associated with the island of Ireland. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Irish MaritimeWikipedia:WikiProject Irish MaritimeTemplate:WikiProject Irish MaritimeIrish Maritime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
I would not agree with this suggestion. 'Swansea Cork Ferry' (and the many variations on this theme in Wiki) refers to the route, and this article carries useful background info about the previous operator and the campaign to restore the service. "Fastnet Line" is about the new operating company, and, while the Fastnet Line article isn't very well written, it is a distinct entity, and should remain so. Another issue is that we have had previous Wiki problems with the 'is Swansea Cork Ferry a generic' issue, as individuals associated with the previous operator claim that any mention of 'Swansea' 'Cork' and 'Ferry' in the same sentence constitutes an infringement of their trademarks - last time it ended up in a wiki redirect war. Suggest instead that the two pages be kept separate and the Fastnet Line page be improved. Nobullman (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this article is about the ferry route between Swansea and Cork. The Fastnet Line article is about the company that is currently operating a service on this route. Previously a company called "Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd." operated a ferry on this route and is nothing to do with Fastnet Line. Merging Fastnet Line into this article could cause some confusion. There is the possibility of other companies operating a ferry on this route and Fastnet Line is not limited to operating a ferry on this route only. I would keep this article as it is and improve on the Fastnet Line article. However, I wouldn't object to this article being re-named to "Cork Swansea ferry" (which is pretty much interchangeable with "Swansea Cork ferry") to avoid confusion with the previous operator on this route "Swansea Cork Ferries Ltd." Wiccasha (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe "Cork Swansea ferry" is a very common name at all, probably due to the fact that it's mostly Welsh travelling to Ireland rather than the other way round. It would be unwise to invent a name for disambiguation purposes when there are other ways around this. It's always possible than other company could operate on any route, but here it would be extremely unlikely, and we would cross that bridge when we get to it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support the merge based on the fact that there is very little information about the company itself, and improving the Fastnet Line is easier said than done due to its lack of history. Also much of the information is duplicated in both articles. So it would be sensible to have all the information in one place. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I though it would make common sense to merge these articles as one is about the route and the other is about the operator who operates no other route. I can see there is currently not going to work without controversy so im removing the tags GainLine ♠♥19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a clear naming convention which is [place, principal area, constituent country] - see the guidance on the "How to write about settlements" guide or at WP:UKPLACE. The use of regions or other geographic descriptors has been discouraged previously on various talk pages, because of POV issues (see for example this discussion). I see no reason why an additional descriptor has to be applied here to Swansea and not County Cork or other settlements mentioned elsewhere in the encyclopedia. On a similar POV front, I see no reason why "South Wales" (whether the 's' is capitalised or not) should necessarily be preferred to "South West Wales" or even "West Wales", since are both equally WP:V for Swansea.--Pondle (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion quoted does not deal with geographical description. It deals with political divisions. South Wales/South West Wales etc. are political divisions, albeit totally unofficial ones. Without a capital letter, south Wales means southern Wales. That means a physical situation. As Swansea is on the south coast of Wales, it is impossible to argue that Swansea is not in southern Wales, or to suggest that this is subjective. Per WP:BRD, you should not revert a revert, something you have quoted in the past, so please do not make hypocritical edits. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion I linked to was about naming conventions, not specifically about political divisions - though they are of course relevant in this context. It seems to me that we have a clear convention, which you're seeking to change, although only seemingly for Swansea... I don't know why. As for your point about geography, yes, Swansea is indisputably on the southern coast of Wales, but I could equally well say that it's in/on the coast of south west Wales or even west Wales, since both are WP:V. You see what I mean about subjective? The point is that we don't use these 'regional' descriptors when identifying places. Since your edit has broader implications, I'm going to re-raise the issue with the editors who contributed to the original debate on the Welsh Wikipedians noticeboard.--Pondle (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is pretty clear, not just for Wales, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. We do not use geographical descriptors to produce regions in the lead. Hence, Manchester is in England, not Manchester is in north west England. It should therefore be Swansea in Wales, not Swansea in south Wales. Must admit, I am puzzled why it is felt necessary to describe Swansea in south Wales, but not Cork in south east Ireland in the current version: there is no logic to that at all! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I seem to remember you previously making inconsistent edits like this before Welshleprechaun. Thinking back, you did indeed rightly revert "Cardiff, South Wales" here but you applied "Swansea, South Wales" here. So in your eyes Swansea is in South Wales (with or without capitalisation) but Cardiff is not?! Whatever you think of the naming convention, this is totally illogical editing.--Pondle (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Skinsmoke and Pondle. The only occasions where I can think it might be useful to use a description like "South Wales" as a primary locational descriptor are in cases like Newport, where Newport, South Wales would be preferable to Newport, Monmouthshire, in disambiguating the city from Newport, West Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the policy though, is that it can appear too nationalistic. I don't really see what harm adding a compass-point does. You still abide by the policy to state what part of the UK a place is in, but narrow it down to be more useful. Obviously I would prefer the use of counties, but until the government sort out the mess they've got us into it's probably best avoided for the time being. Owain (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with precision. What are the arguments against this? I've yet to see any. Note that I didn't qualify the Irish side because it is given as [Town], [County]. As Swansea is a town and a county, this would be useless. The naming convention was agreed on for the main articles on settlements. So I am not contesting the naming convention, however if you talk about transport, it is important to include geogrpahical detail. Also, Pondle, please stop edit warring and breaking WP:BRD until there has been a full discussion. As I said, this is very hypocritical. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welshleprechaun, your approach could lead to constant POV disputes about whether places are in the 'south' or 'south west', 'north' or 'mid' of a particular country. There is an agreed convention, let's just stick with that - and be consistent in our treatment of different places - shall we? As for breaking WP:BRD, you'll notice that I only made a third and final revert after discussion here. Please stop trying to score points, if you have a complaint take it to Wikiquette alerts. I may not be a perfect editor, but I'm confident that my record is a pretty good one.--Pondle (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of this being about scoring points is making things personal. This is about editing consisently, i.e. not one rule for you and another for eveyone else. Surely this is very basic. If you revert every time you write on the talk page, that is still edit warring. Welshleprechaun 21:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
