Talk:MS Lady of Mann

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

Isle of Man Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man 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.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Move

I've moved this page from MS Panagia Soumela to Lady of Mann because
a) it is the launch name
b) she spent most of her career at that name
c) most of the article is about her service with IoM Steam packet
In fact, I'm unclear why the article was at MS Panagia Soumela in the first place. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be under Panagia Soumela, as it is current name of the vessel. The ex-Manx Vikings article is under Nindawayma - its current name, so I think we should put the the article's original name back, I am not able to do so. Clipper Pennant (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more logic to using the current name than using the launch name; less in fact, because using the current name would mean having to move the article each time the name changed. And the Manx Viking/Nindawayma example is not persuasive; that ship spent longer as Manx Viking, and the article has more to say about her under that name, so the same case for a move can be made there, too. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Clipper Pennant on this one, it makes no sense at all to have the vessel under its old name regardless of how long it spent under that name. I think the current name of the vessel should be reinstated on the article title. With the Nindawayma, the vessel has spent more time as Nindawayma (1989-pres), not Manx Viking (1978-87). Lightoller (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear:

Despite this article being 90% about Lady of Mann and despite that being the name by which she is best–known, you feel this page should be at Panagia Soumela, just because that is the current name of the ship? Why is that such an important consideration?

But,it isn’t something I want to fall out over: If you are unhappy about this being at LoM as a whole, why not try the wisdom of Solomon and split the article between them? (I really don’t get why ship histories have to be combined together on the same page anyway). Xyl 54 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes far more sense to have the article under the vessel's current name. And plus, I created the article. There isn't much information on the vessel as Panagia Soumela to include in the article, but still, it should be under the current name. Regards - Lightoller (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I think LoM is notable enough and well known enough to have her own page. If you are saying they both have to be on the same page I’d argue for LoM, but, to repeat, I don’t see why there can’t be two pages.

The guidelines at ship naming only say we would go with the best-known name; With 15,300 google hits for MV Lady of Mann, compared to 561 for MV Panagia Soumela, that would be LoM.

But, if you wrote it, why do it this way? If the subject is PS, why write mostly about LoM? To quote someone in a different discussion, It would be incongruous to have an article named one thing when the bulk of the article is about another.Xyl 54 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little information available about the ship as Panagia Soumela to include in the article, whereas there is lots of information to include about the Lady of Mann. If the information at the time was available, I would have included it in the article. Lightoller (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move, again

This page was moved from Lady of Mann to Panagia Soumela, without any explanation here.
I’ve moved it back; Would somebody care to explain why an article that is patently about the IoM boat Lady of Mann should be at a different title altogether? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it for a number of reasons. The HSC Hellenic Wind article is mostly about the ship as SuperSeaCat Two and Viking, yet the article has the name HSC Hellenic Wind, it's exactly the same situation as this article. As with other former Steam Packet boats (MS Nindawayma (Manx Viking), HSC Speedrunner III (SuperSeaCat Three) and HSC Jaume II (SeaCat Rapide)). I think if the information was available for the article then it would be on the article, but still I think the article should carry the Panagia Soumela name as the vessel is not called Lady of Mann and it can be misleading for those who may not know. Therefore it should be moved back to prevent confusion. JamesSteamPacket (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, if I may say so, is more an argument to move Hellenic Wind (and the others) to their IoM names than the reverse. The guideline (or one of them), is to use the best-known name; it looks like that would be the IoM name in each case.

I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument why articles on ships in service have to be at the current name, rather than, say, the launch name. (which is what we seem to use for ships out of service). Standardizing on the current name means that every time the ship changes hands (which for merchant ships is fairly frequently) the page would have to be moved. It is on my to-do list (regrettably a long way down) to have a go at some articles for the IoM boats; it'll seem pretty silly to have all the older ships at the right name, and all the ones still in existence somewhere else.

But if it is imperative to have a PS page, why not split the article? There’s nothing wrong with having two articles; We have two pages anyhow (an article and a redirect). Why not have detail on both instead? As far as I can see PS is somewhat different to LoM now; I understand she's bigger and is a stern loader, so the infobox detail is different. What say you? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS In fact I’ve been bold and done that; I've copied the Panagia Soumela detail onto the redirect page, in an attempt to resolve this. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point, it just has two articles on the same thing. Plus, as I've already said if the article has a ship's former name, it can be misleading, and after all, Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. That's my side of the argument to have the current names. It provides better information, in my opinion. JamesSteamPacket (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a way of breaking the deadlock. The PS page is about the current ship, and can be added to from now on; LoM is historical. Having separate articles on different incarnations of the same hull isn't unusual, if there's something to be said about them.

It would make sense to trim the PS detail here, and fix the infobox (I'm guessing from your previous edits the detail there applies to the curent incarnation, not the Lady) but I didn't want to do too much while the discussion was still open. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:NC-SHIPS#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality, An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name. As the vessel has had a significant carrier as the MS Lady of Mann and a unnotable career thus far as the MS Panagia Soumela, I have restored the redirect and removed the vessel information as it is all duplicated here. JonEastham (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]