Talk:MV Danny F II: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:57, 22 December 2009

Ships C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Disaster management Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving MV Danny F II was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 December 2009.

Wikipedia

MMSI Number

I've added the MMSI Number to the infobox, but the source needs to be archived. I'm not sure how to do this, is there an editor who can help? Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty numbers mismatch?

carrying six passengers, 77 crew,makes 83 people total but 38 of the people on board were rescued and 4 died makes 42 people accounted for. What happened with the remaining 41? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barvinok (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the "current event" tag. Those details will become apparant in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mahmoud Deletion

As there is no evidence that this ship was actually involved, the info coming from IP 62.84.81.183 as their ONE and ONLY edit, and indications that the Al Mahmoud was off Italy, a long way from Lebanon, is there any reason this "The Syrian ship Al Mahmoud Orient was among the rescue team" should not be removed? It seems like vandalism to me--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the info is unverifiable then it should go. Mjroots (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo Value

Anyone wish to work up an estimate of the value of livestock cargo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.34.103 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't do estimates. If the info is reported by a reliable source we can incorporate it into the article with a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Mjroots. Is there a place to discuss the reasoning behind that decision? It seems like logical and valuable information for Wikipedia to contain. Also, it seems that for cargo such as livestock for which there is a known stock value, it is not so much reporting as simple mathematics; i.e. if 1 cow = $200.00, 10000 cattle = $2,000,000.00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.34.103 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind my comments is one of our core policies - verification, backed up by no original research. It can be frustrating at times knowing that something is true but being unable to find a verifiable source for the fact. Something we have to learn to live with. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand verifiability. I suppose then this may be a special case scenario as livestock are publicly traded. For example, if we had a source saying that 'x' number of shares of Google stock were sold, would it be considered original research to quote the value per share of (GOOG) as 'y' at the time of the sale and do the mathematics ourselves? "the value of the stock sold therefore is 'x*y.'"

Revision as of 11:58, 22 December 2009 edit Mjroots (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 320,166 edits →‎Cargo Value: typo ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:57, 22 December 2009 edit undo 70.188.34.103 (talk) →‎Cargo Value Next edit →
Line 26:		Line 26:

	:The reasoning behind my comments is one of our core policies - [[WP:V\|verification]], backed up by [[WP:OR\|no original research]]. It can be frustrating at times ''knowing'' that something is true but being unable to find a ''verifiable source'' for the fact. Something we have to learn to live with. [[User:Mjroots\|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots\|talk]]) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)		:The reasoning behind my comments is one of our core policies - [[WP:V\|verification]], backed up by [[WP:OR\|no original research]]. It can be frustrating at times ''knowing'' that something is true but being unable to find a ''verifiable source'' for the fact. Something we have to learn to live with. [[User:Mjroots\|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots\|talk]]) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

			I understand verifiability. I suppose then this may be a special case scenario as livestock are publicly traded. For example, if we had a source saying that 'x' number of shares of Google stock were sold, would it be considered original research to quote the value per share of (GOOG) as 'y' at the time of the sale and do the mathematics ourselves? "the value of the stock sold therefore is 'x*y.'"