Talk:Argyll Ferries/Archives/2017 1

Lochmor

I've tagged the statement "Argyll Ferries purchased the former CalMac ferry MV Lochmor." as that doesn't seem to tie in with our article on MV Lochmor. All this stuff seems a bit murky unclear, better sourcing is needed. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC) murky struck unclear substituted, dave souza, talk 09:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag Answer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ McLean (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why Dave Souza uses the impolite and potentially offensive word 'murky'. As former owners of the MV Lochmor, we can state categorically that the detail within the Wiki Argyll Ferries article on ownership of the MV Lochmor is correct. The confusion may come when those who may not understand the intricacies of company structure apply assumptions. For the avoidance of doubt, our holding company Argyll Group plc, at that time was parent company to the ownership, certification, crewing etc., of this ship. This was throughout the period from when we purchased the vessel from Caledonian MacBrayne on 12th March 2001 at Tobermory, Isle of Mull, until the point where we sold the ship from Campbeltown, Argyll. There is nothing 'murky' about the ownership and operation of a vessel being by different legal entities. For the corporately challenged, please study CalMac Ferries Ltd., and their relationship with Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. Regards, Russ McLean. Russ McLean (talk 22:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Russ, thanks for responding, please sign your posts. So, where this says the "original owner of the corporate identity Argyll Ferries purchased the former CalMac ferry MV Lochmor" it means MV Lochmor was bought by "Landwest Corp Ltd, Argyll and renamed MV Loch Awe", and while owned by "Landwest, the ship was maintained, certified and crewed by Landwest Corporation's sister company Argyll Ferries Ltd." That's a bit clearer, but needs verification from a reliable published source. Remember that what's called in WP terms "original research" isn't accepted or enough, and unless reliable third party sources are cited, this whole bit may have to be deleted from both articles. Please apply your knowledge to finding such sources, to ensure formatting and clarity it may be best to show them on article talk pages rather than just adding them as inline citations, but either course will be ok. Also note your wording suggests a potential WP:COI in editing, so care to comply with that guidance is required. Thanks, dave souza, talk 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having searched a bit, I've found evidence of previous companies with the same name and have revised the section in accordance with these sources. No mention of Lochmor or sign of a current dispute over the name, verifiication needed if that's to be added. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Argyll Flyer

Have snapped the former Connemara Queen, and have for the moment put it in the CalMac category – no doubt she'll get her own commons cat sometime, as will Argyll Ferries. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Argyll Ferries performance

I am new to wikipedia so please excuse any breaches of etiquette or other errors.

I would like to delete the final sentence on the page

In March 2012 Argyll Ferries announced performance figures for February and March. They stated that the service had been very reliable contractually, showing good punctuality.[8]

There are several reasons for this

1. A spokesperson for the company is simply being quoted in the reference, that is not really a citation.
2. The company publishes statistics monthly on its website so announcing performance is not relevant.
3. Reliability is not used in the plain English sense in the reference, but actually means contractual reliability, and so is misleading.
4. The reference gives a sense that passenger numbers are increasing but it is not clear if that really is the case.
5. As far as I am aware the company does not publish passenger numbers nor has it published its passenger number projections.

Unless there are objections I will remove the final sentence and reference at some point. ScottishFerryUser (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem with your newness, thanks for contributing. The reference has been published by a reliable secondary source which is preferred to doing our own assessment of the significance of the monthly statistics, though of course we should not go beyond what the source says and should be clear that it's information put out by the company. It's not clear how you've established how this relates to "contractual reliability" and so a source explaining this may be needed. If you think there is doubt about the reported increase in passenger numbers, we'd need a reliable published source expressing that doubt to avoid original research. So, I object to removal of that reference, but if you can clarify our summary while accurately reflecting the reference, or provide new references, that will be welcome. What we can't have is unpublished hearsay about the performance of the ferry service. . dave souza, talk 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The published statistics just use the term reliability with a footnote to indicate weather cancellations are not included. The contract, which is referenced, permits sailings that fail to take place due to safety considerations including adverse weather to be counted as if they had sailed for the purposes of reliability, so it is a contractual definition of reliability. When the company spokesman is quoted he uses the term Technical Reliability. It is clear that the term reliability is not being used in its normal plain English sense, since the definition comes from the contract it is contractual reliability.
I understand the problem with interpreting the statistics. On the other hand a spokesman selecting a particular month can be very misleading. The company's own website publishes the statistics and for the 5 months published Nov/11 - Mar/12 there are a total of 328 cancellation of which 270 are for the weather, the service started in Jul/11 so there are actually many more. Figures for the previous service, in the referenced report, show it cancelled on average 52 sailings for weather per year.
Regarding passenger numbers I am saying that the reference quoted does not actually say passenger numbers increased. All the spokesman said was that day tripper numbers were starting to increase - overall passenger numbers may have and probably did fall. I cannot say they did fall on the other hand nobody can say they did rise. ScottishFerryUser (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argyll Ferries. 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/20130607084956/http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/water/ferries/Gourock-Dunoon_PSC.pdf to http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/water/ferries/Gourock-Dunoon_PSC.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Test edit re bot archiving

I'm adding this talk page comment as a test regarding the addition of bot archiving to the page as there is an indication that similar additions by the same user may malfunction and archive immediately. Let's see what happens. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)