Talk:Interceptor (Pirates of the Caribbean)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disney Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] HMS orHMAV?

What is the right title of the Interceptor? theis article gives it as HMS, but as the Interceptor hve only 16 cannons, it shuold be an unrated, and therefore an Armed Vessel (HMAV) and not a ship (HMS). Another evidence for this is that in the movie many characters call her a boat and not a ship.

[edit] Article doesn't specify it's fiction

Please help rewrite this article so that the fact it's fiction is clear. Thanks Chupper 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose merge

To end any doubt, I am putting an opposition to the merge of this article (which shouldn't be happening without discussion to begin with). This vessel was NOT a minor character or minor ship it played a central role for the first movie, throughout the entire movie. --OuroborosCobra 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It is never a matter of "status" of articles, it is a matter of context, accessibility, and comprehensiveness of the information. I note that this article contains a lot of text that is about the POTC movie rather than about this particular ship. It would certainly add context to keep this information together. Furthermore, arguments that this is "out of process" somehow are invalid, per WP:NOBOOK. >Radiant< 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOBOOK is not an excuse to violate guidelines when doing so will cause an edit war, and in fact the specific guideline I felt was being violated was merging with no consensus and clear opposition, which WP:MERGE specifically says to avoid as it will cause an edit war, which is what we saw here. There is opposition to this merge, and there has been no consensus to do it. Once it became clear there was opposition, the proper way to avoid an edit war was to hold off on the merge and discuss it here. WP:NOBOOK is not a blanket excuse that says you can ignore every rule, policy, or guideline, start an edit war, piss off the community, and be a general nuisance. --OuroborosCobra 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken in that WP:MERGE is a guideline. It isn't. The belief that it is was all the opposition hinged on. The page explicitly states "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." Reverting based on "not discussing it" makes no sense whatsoever, especially if you're referring to WP:MERGE as something to be absolutely followed. If you personally want this article to not be merged, I'm fine with that, but please don't act under the notion that everything below "How to merge pages" is an official process for every merge. ' 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We've covered that below. Arguing over the status of WP:MERGE is futile and a distraction from the real issues here. Yes, merging is "just another edit" but any edit that other users contest should be discussed. Therefore this particular merge should be open to discussion before taking place. Whilst the merge procedure need not be followed for every merge, it should be followed in this instance. Waggers 08:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. What I'm trying to explain to you is that the "opposition"'s only arguments were "this is out of process", of which there were none. Telling me that I'm required to follow "process" because the opposition says I wasn't following "process" is begging the question. ' 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But more substantial reasons for opposing the merge have now been made below. Waggers 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted again

I've reverted the "merge" again, for the following reasons:

  1. The Interceptor is a ship, not a character; therefore, deleting this article and redirecting it to List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is inappropriate
  2. There were no merge tags on either article - see WP:MERGE
  3. There's clear opposition to the merge, and consensus has not been reached. No action should be taken until it is.
  4. The articles weren't merged. The idea of a merge is that the content is transferred to the destination, not just deleted. To be safe, please copy the content BEFORE deleting the source article.

-- Waggers 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Don't get me wrong, I'm not convinced this article should stay as it is - but the rules are there for a reason and in this case, especially as there's opposition to the merge, they should be followed. Waggers 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • "#1" is invalid because that list page has a whole section on ships. Arguably the page name is wrong, but the page content isn't. "#2" is invalid per WP:BURO and WP:NOBOOK; specifically, there exists no Official Merge Procedure that should have been followed here. "#3" I'm wondering about, since all opposition I've seen so far is the suggestion that "this is out of process", per #2. And "#4", a merge is not a copy/paste of content per se; note that this article as it stands contains quite a bit of information about the movie, rather than the ship in question, which is already covered elsewhere. >Radiant< 11:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I therefore suggest that a subsection in the Ships section of List of minor characters in Pirates of the Caribbean is created and populated with any information that isn't covered elsewhere before this page is redirected. I also suggest that the redirect is to that particular section rather than the minor characters article as a whole. Once that's done, I have no further objections.
Whilst the merge procedure may have guideline status as opposed to policy status, it's still a common sense approach and the considerate thing to do is to follow it. Waggers 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose this merge on grounds that the article is fine by itself, large and contentful, and merging a good sized article into an already huge overview article is poor content management. The policies that suggest that we should merge some fiction articles don't override basic clean editing and common sense - if the article is fine as-is, and the proposed merge target is a monstrosity, you should be thinking about Splitting rather than merging. Later today I will tag this with a Mergeto tag, as there is discussion here, but I oppose making any merge. Georgewilliamherbert 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point is that this "contentful" page contains a lot of content that isn't about the ship, but about the movie, and therefore doesn't belong here. >Radiant< 08:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful with that argument as the ship is part of the film. It would be impossible to describe the ship without describing its role in the film and setting some context. Having read through the article, I'm happy that there's no information there that doesn't either relate directly to the ship (and its role in the film) or provide important context. I know I'm WP:WAXing here but compare this article to Millennium Falcon for example - the context of the ship in the film is important to the article. Waggers 10:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Except for the first sentence, the entire "history" section relates the plot of the film, rather than describing the ship. >Radiant< 11:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; the article describes the role of the ship in the film. Yes, that mirrors a lot of the plot from the film, but that's only because the ship is integral to that plot. In that respect, we get back to my first point - that putting it in an article about minor characters is not sensible since it's neither minor nor a character. The more I look at this, the more I think the article should stay as it is. Waggers 11:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You could call the page "List of Ships in POTC" or something. The point is that we have an article about the plot of the film, which is in the main article, and it is not useful to duplicate that information here. As it stands now this page has way too little information that isn't already covered some place else, in a better way. >Radiant< 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Interceptor.JPG

Image:The Interceptor.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)