Talk:HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Toowoomba in dock.jpg

Image:HMAS Toowoomba in dock.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Toowoomba.gif

Image:HMAS Toowoomba.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Current commander, reasons for removal

The reason I continue to remove the paragraph on Commander Ingham, the current commander (as of this post) of Toowoomba, is that I do not believe that he has made a major impact on the history of the ship to warrant detailing in this article. Cmdr Ingham is basically doing his job...if another officer of the RAN was posted to the ship for the deployment to the Gulf, or another ship made the deployment instead of Toowoomba, the other CO would have the same impact on the ship's history as Commander Ingham, as they would be doing exactly what Commander Ingham would be doing in the same position.

Inclusion/description of officers in a ship article are usually made because that officer has impacted on the ship in a significant fasion (such as Captains John Robertson and John Stevenson during each of HMAS Melbourne's destroyer-sinking collisions, Captain Emile Dechaineux killed and Commodore John Collins wounded during the world's first kamikaze attack on HMAS Australia, or Captain Loben Maund, the CO when the carrier HMS Ark Royal was attacked and sunk, and was criticised for his actions during which). I do not think that Commander Ingham meets this standard for inclusion at this time. -- saberwyn 10:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just protected this article for three days to stop the edit warring. Please discuss the pros and cons of naming the ship's current commander here. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am now a member of Wikipedia with my own account.......Excellent! For the benefit of Saberwyn this is what I wrote about an hour ago on Nick-D's page - I am also sorry if I am "talking" incorrectly (however, I will learn soon I hope!)

.....In regards to the 'edit dispute', I cannot understand why a Commanding Officer should not have his name included on the page. You are correct in stating that they change ever few years (18-24 months to be precise); however, during this time a ship in the RAN is commissioned because it has Commanding Officer. Being selected for command of a ship is an achievement in itself, and undoubtedly, when they have moved-on into the wider navy, for good or bad, they have left an indelible mark on the 'soul' of the ship. This is even reflected in the fact that all Commanding Officers have their names recorded on a Honours Board. In further regard to you quip on 'names' - why does the Chief of Navy have a web-page entirely devoted to him? I am not saying that he does not deserve one (on the contrary), merely I am trying to indicate that despite the obvious size difference, the Chief of Navy is to the RAN as a Commanding Officer is to a Ship. In the end, it is unjust to removed his name on the basis that you do not think it is appropriate. Furthermore, I speak with authority in such matters - personally knowing CMDR Ingham, he is currently one of the highest regarded Commanding Officers in the RAN at present (Just type his name into the web). Furthermore, I am soon to finish my degree (BA in the UNSW@ADFA) in Naval and Military History, and I will hopefully be approved to study for my Honours. I have been reading this page and notice that you mention Dr Stevens &c. and specific reference to Canberra - are you in the Navy? I assume someone with your knowledge has either a serving relative or is in service them self. Regards Thesiger.

Following comment from Nick-D: Could you please discuss this at Talk:HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156) so other editors can participate in the discussion? I think that the main issue is in relation to the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which basically state that people who haven't received much coverage in professionally published works (newspapers, books, high-quality websites, etc), generally shouldn't be included in articles. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way - I'd encourage you to register an account (though this is by no means compulsory) and/or participate in the WikiProject Military history. We could certainly use more editors with borrowing rights at ADFA's excellent library! I live in Canberra, but neither I nor anyone in my family is in the military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesiger (talk • contribs)

Hello, Thesiger, and welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry about the "talking" thing, you'll pick it up quickly. One tip to start with, when you finish talk page post, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end. When you save the page, this becomes your username and the time you posted, like a signature.

The removal of information regarding Commander Ingham from this article is not intended as a slight against either you or him. Hopefully this disagreement doesn't sour your opinion of the community. You say "I cannot understand why a Commanding Officer should not have his name included on the page"... which I read as "all commanding officers should be detailed". I disagree with listing all commanding officers in their ships' articles for the following reasons.

Firstly, the article is meant to be about the ship; excess 'tangent' information can cause problems as the article expands. Most warships will have a long and complicated history by the time they are finally decommissioned, but there are limits to how much people are willing to read, and technical limitations on article size, which will result in some information being excluded. I think the name and details of the commanding officer at any given time falls into this group, as if Officer X was in command during at a particular time, it is almost certain that if Officer Y was there instead, the history of the ship will be identical (or close enough to be indistinguishable).

Take as an example the article on the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne (R21), one of Wikipedia's Featured Articles (and one which I contributed to heavily). That article currently weighs in at 82kb, or 27 printed pages. When compared to Wikipedia's guidelines on size (Wikipedia:Article size, which suggest that 30-50kb or 10 pages is about average), Melbourne’s article is big. Only two of the carrier's commanding officers, Captains John Robertson and John Stevenson, are mentioned: the two officers in command at the time of, and initially blamed for, the carrier's two major collisions. It was (and is still) argued that if somebody else was in charge, the ship's history could be significantly different. However, the rest of the ship's history would most likely have happened the same way regardless of who was in command at the time. The current article for Toowoomba is nowhere near this point in size, but as it grows this will become a more important problem.

The second factor is "can the information be appropriately sourced and verified?" Including information in an article is entirely dependant on if there are sources available for the information. The standard of inclusion for Wikipedia is "Verifiability", which is basically if a reader can double-check the information in one or more other sources (see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy for more detail). The preference is towards what the community calls "reliable sources": material that is published and available to the public, and has gone through an editorial/fact-checking/review process before publication. In addition, a good reliable source will cover the subject in some level of detail, and be independant of the subject.

If we were to list every single officer who held command of a ship, we would have to list every, single officer who held command. Apart from the potential size problems, every mention needs to be reliably sourced, and although all commanding officers are listed in the ship's records, these records are (in my experience) rarely published. Other sources of information could provide an incomplete list, but gaps in the ship's history where 'nobody' is in command would look quite odd to the reader. That said, for most civilians it doesn't matter who is running the ship, as long as the ship is being run.

Third up: "is the information in the sources really relevant to the article?" In some cases, the officer will be 'well known' through multiple sources, but only in connection to the ship and a specific, major event. To go back to Melbourne, Robertson and Stevenson are known for their roles in each collision, and what has been written about them is in this context, therefore they should be described in the carrier's article in enough detail to reflect this. In others, there will be multiple sources describing an officer's overall personal history, but it will be of varying relevance to the ships they served on. Vice Admiral Russell Crane has an article because there are sufficent sources to support an article discussing his entire career. Although he commanded several ships as part of his career (I agree that earning command of a warship is a major achievement, and these are important events in his history), his time in command of each was relatively uneventful, so he is not mentioned in any of their articles. In contrast, Lieutenant Commander Robert William Rankin's orders for the sloop HMAS Yarra (U77) to engage the Japanese cruisers and the convoy to scatter a major event in both his and the sloop's history: he is linked to from the Yarra article and his actions are described both in his article and Yarra’s. There is often little published about most commanding officers, and it is often written about the ship, only mentioning the CO in passing. All commanding officers (indeed all personnel) will impact on their ship's history, but the level of impact varies and I think only those who have the greatest effect should be included. The policy pages Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons go into more detail on this issue.

Apologies about the length, but hopefully this clears up where I stand on the matter. If you would like me to further clarify or explain anything, feel free to ask. -- saberwyn 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228212541/http://www.navy.gov.au/Counter-Piracy_First_for_Toowoomba to http://www.navy.gov.au/Counter-Piracy_First_for_Toowoomba
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808054039/http://www.navy.gov.au/Toowoomba_disarms_pirate_threat to http://www.navy.gov.au/Toowoomba_disarms_pirate_threat
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.imo.org/newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1773&doc_id=12107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002103658/http://natgeotv.com.au/programmes/australian-pirate-patrol/About.aspx to http://natgeotv.com.au/programmes/australian-pirate-patrol/About.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)