User talk:TheScillonian

This is TheScillonian's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, TheScillonian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I noticed quite a few of your edits have been focussed on Gardline group and associated articles. Given the article's history, you should at least be made aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. You have also chosen a username that may make it easy for someone to link your edits here to a non-Wikipedia identity. You might like to consider changing your username if you think you privacy might be compromised.

For now, though, welcome and please let me know if there is anything I can help you with. Stalwart111 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gardline Shipping

In my humble opinion, I'm not sure there would be a lot of value in creating both Gardline group and Gardline Shipping Ltd. Both would need to be individually notable to remain here on Wikipedia. An argument could be made that one is notable and details about the other should be included in that article. But having both might be a struggle, especially if some of the content is duplicated. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! You would probably need to first have a read of WP:N and WP:CORPDEPTH. Generally, the fact that a company is different to a subsidiary is not a reason for inclusion. Each subject covered here must be individually "notable". I think it might be a struggle to convince people that the two companies are sufficiently individually notable to justify two entries. You might be better off moving the Gardline Shipping information into the Gardline group article. I have created a sub-section to allow for exactly that. To be considered notable, a company needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "sources" you have added to the shipping company article are from the company's own websites. These would not be considered reliable sources. Most of the coverage I could find was about the shipping company, not the parent holding company. You might be able to use that coverage to justify an article on the parent company if the shipping company is included there. But if the shipping company has its own article, the parent company would likely not be considered notable enough in its own right, if that makes sense. I think you'll probably need to pick on or the other. Otherwise you might get Gardline Shipping up, only for Gardline group to then be deleted. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that both are individually notable.

On the username thing, have a read of WP:RENAME. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking good. Just keep working on the tables as you have time, there's no deadline here. I can work with you to link other articles to that section for articles that should reference the shipping company, as opposed to the group. I have found some good references that should put WP:CORPDEPTH beyond doubt and will add them to the article. But they all (as I thought) talk about different parts of the larger "group" (like this article), rather than giving "in depth" coverage to one particular part. I think we definitely need a section in the article about the offshore wind farm project - that's easily the project for which they have gained the most coverage. Stalwart111 00:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles for each individual vessel might get difficult, because they would each be expected to pass the general notability guidelines. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a directory of vessels so the fact that they simply exist does not mean that Wikipedia can necessarily justify having an article on each one. The vessels themselves would need to be individually notable. I have added a list of potential references to the article talk page. I will give you some time to finish your current "set" of edits and will then spend some time adding them to the article. It's looking quite good, though, just a matter of doing some copy-editing. Stalwart111 01:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help with the above, I've just created a redirect at Gardline Shipping which goes straight to that section at Gardline group. So if people are looking for GS, they will be taken directly to GG. Stalwart111 02:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better off putting those thumbnails in the table itself, rather than in a gallery at the end. Galleries are not often used that way; we would normally just add a link to a category at Commons. Also, there's probably only a need for one image per vessel, unless the vessel has its own page. Stalwart111 02:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted.

Also, have you had a look at WP:RENAME? Would strongly recommend it under the circumstances. Stalwart111 02:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - no problem. Best just to say:

Having read the associated policies, I am concerned my newly-registered username may compromise my off-WP privacy.

Privacy is a key consideration here and there shouldn't be any objection to changing it. You should give some consideration to what you would like instead. Don't make it anything that relates to a company or an individual. Adding a number at the end or something unusual will mean it is far less likely to already be taken. Stalwart111 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also created a userpage for you here. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gardline

It's looking good. I think perhaps the three "floating" pictures next to the tables should perhaps go into the gallery. I'm not a huge fan of those galleries but if the images aren't going to be imbedded in the table itself then they should probably be moved to the gallery. As they are, they will cause issues for some browsers while next to the tables. But other than that, it's pretty good. I will move some of those references into the article tomorrow along with some wind turbine project info. Stalwart111 11:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I've removed the "thumb" parameters from each of the images in the table and defined a size for each one, just to clean it up. I've now also added the references I listed on the talk page along with information about the company history and wind farm work. I reckon it's looking pretty good now. I've removed the work-in-progress tag given we've both, I think, completed the must do tasks. Anything else you think needs to be done? Stalwart111 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More vessels

There's a few more vessels I found that might be worth adding to the list:

ACV Ashmore Guardian
HMS Blackburn (the second one in that disambig list)

I think there might be a few more owned-but-leased-to-Australian-Customs vessels too. I will keep digging. Stalwart111 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the new entries - good stuff. Saw the Triton too - cool boat. I think you have the second one (above) already, as the Gardline Locater. But, yeah, the first has it's own page already and an image so I think it's worth adding. Is it worth adding a customs/navy section to list those separately? Buying and leasing military/border patrol vessels doesn't seem to be part of their "core business" - more something they do on the side. Stalwart111 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for help grow a page I started a few years ago.. Gardline! yarmouth-editor (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd

Hello TheScillonian. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Gardline Shipping Ltd".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gardline Shipping Ltd}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. MJ94 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]