Talk:Italian ship Uragano

Set indices with red links

This is a ship index page not a dab page see WP:SETINDEX. Redlinks are fine, it creates a page in the category List of Italian Ship Names enabling people to see that there are more then one ship of that name Lyndaship (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:SETINDEX that suggest that the list can be made up of only redlinks. As per WP:CSC a list can be made up of notable and non notable entries if the list is short but these have no blue linked entries. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Its not a stand alone list - its a SHIP INDEX page and there is nothing in WP:SETINDEX which says that index pages CAN'T be made up of only redlinks. Both ships here are notable under the ships notability criteria Lyndaship (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As it says in the very first line A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name." And links to stand alone lists so must follow those rules. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you point to another SETINDEX that you did not create that only has redlinked entries please? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In the introduction to WP:SETINDEX it says "The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." and this article does not. Please respond as all these articles that you have created are in direct contradiction to the style guidelines in stand-alone lists. They are all candidates for deletion as they do not meet WP:CSC. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I could find you another all redlinked set index but WP:OTHERSTUFF would apply. We are currently having this exchange on both here and my talk page, as you are querying the whole policy as opposed to just this one page I propose we solely continue on my talk page. Lyndaship (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As the articles you have created are contrary to list guidelines and you are saying that redlinks are fine I'm trying to see if there is WP:CONCENSUS amongst the project members to create these index pages that just consist of redlinks. Also you may not have read all that is written in WP:OTHERSTUFF but it says "comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case" and also "using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." I happen to believe that WP:CONSISTENCY is important. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to contine here as it is more likely to generate comments from other project members. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dom, one wonders where you think there is a requirement that stand alone lists must contain only blue links. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

These are all valid and notable redlinks. I don't see what the issue here is. They'll be turned blue in the fullness of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Im Inot saying that they all have to be bluelinked I am saying that as a standalone list they have to meet WP:CSC and notably the 3rd criteria which days that non notable entries can exist with notable ones. The military history guidelines state that warships may be notable. But this has to proven by sources and there are none. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dom, requesting the deletion of articles without doing a basic check on your part is not the way to approach things. I recall that this is not a one-off mistake on your part. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about this article and standalone lists in general or me? I do not have to search for sources to ask if this article has been correctly created. Do you agree that all standalone lists should meet WP:CSC or not and if not why? As a new pages reviewer we have to check and question new articles. If you want to you can have a look at my percentages on Afd last time I looked a few months ago I was at something like 90% but that may have gone down or up since then. And please remember that in discussions the advice is to talk about content and not contributors. It tends to show a lack of valid arguments if you do the contrary. All I'm asking is do we accept that SETINDEX articles can be made up of only redlinks or not? And if so what policy or guideline allows unsourced articles like this to exist. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You do have to do due diligence before you try to delete a page, something you did not do in the Lizq instance, and did not do here. That is why we're talking about contributors, not content - it's your behavior that is the problem, not this (or any other) content. We aren't having an argument, I am pointing out that you are in the wrong.

As for indices (and lists in general), there is no requirement that all or even any of the individual entries be blue links. Wikipedia is not a finished product. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So unsourced lists of redlinked entries are ok by you? Or should they be at the very least sourced to show that they exist and that they will probably be notable as per WP:MILUNIT. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So long as they're ship index pages, sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dom, how many times do I need to tell you? The fact that an article is unsourced is not by itself, cause to delete it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: without sources how do you know these are valid redlinks? And how can you be sure that they will become bluelinks in the fullness of time? You may want to read WP:MILUNIT.Dom from Paris (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel has written upwards of 600 GAs on warships of various navies - I think he might know what he's talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he does but does that mean that sources are not necessary when he says that a subject is notable? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again I am not questioning the skill or competence of any editor I am just asking if these SETINDEX articles have to meet the guidelines for standalone lists or not? If someone can point to the policy that backs this up I'll be happy to drop the subject but as a NPP reviewer I have to check out the new articles and verify that they are in accordance with the guidelines. It's a shame that no-one seems to understand or respect that and this discussion is going round in circles. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought your objection was the fact that the links are red - why are we moving the goal posts?

I do believe that Lynda provided the sources she's used to create the indices on her talk page - what exactly is still at issue? Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are supposed to be on the article page or here I think. If they are on her talk page that is not much use to anyone as the discussion is going on here. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The point, I'd have hoped was apparent, was that you ought to have dropped the stick once she told you what sources she uses. And if you cared all that much about sourcing, why didn't you add them yourself? Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

and if she or you or anyone else had bothered to take the time to add this sources to the article then we wouldn't wasted so much energy arguing the toss for nothing. I have only just seen her edit. You and the others have spent a couple of hours gleefully telling me that because this is a special case that needs no sourcing and now you're telling me.to drop the stick??? Either the entries need sourcing and the sources should be added to the article or they don't. Don't tell me.drop it because the sources have been produced somewhere else. It is up to the editor that adds unsourced information to add the sources. This is not a new principle I believe. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that I've ever seen sources for a ship setindex page, regardless of red or blue links, and I've written a few of them. They're crosses between DAB pages and ordinary lists so I think that you're being far too dogmatic in your interpretation of WP:CSC. And how do you know that they won't be written in the fullness of time? All it takes is one editor with an interest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one moving goal posts Parsecboy you have said that Wikipedia is not a finished product so no need to have any bluelinked articles... ok but should the redlinked entries be sourced in that case or not? The CSC criteria seem to be clear. Redlinked entries have to be sourced to show they are part of the list and they have potential to be notable. If I add another ship to this list or another 25 ships will you ask me to prove that they exist or not? Dom from Paris (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me give you a piece of advice: what you should have done on finding the first of these indices, was head over to WT:SHIPS and ask somebody if they were legitimate indices, instead of trying to delete them. One of us could have said "yup, they're fine", and we could have all gone on with our day, instead of spinning around in this little teacup. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but as you may have noticed I asked Lyndaship if this was common practice and her reply was something about otherstuffexists. Then another user chimed in misquoting WP:MILUNIT so colour me sceptical but I was only asking for.policy based arguments and all I got was "we're experts so trust us" replies. Anyway I'll leave it at that for the moment but I will have a look around to try and find some policy or RFC so that when this kind of thing pops up again I'll know how to deal with it without bothering the experts. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Answering Editor Sturmvogel 66's point about set index articles with sources, this cirrus search.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Trappist. I see there are some 6000 ship index articles and only 650 or so have any inline cites whatsoever and generally these are for just 1 of the ships listed or other things mentioned on the page like Battle Honours. Lyndaship (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a couple minutes and created one of the two articles listed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)