Talk:Leschi (fireboat)

career flag

I've added the U.S. flag to the "career" section of the infobox as per Infobox ship usage guide for ships on the U.S. registry. LavaBaron (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Mission Statement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for including the mission statement. The majority opinion is that it is not promotional and that it adds detail. The minority opinion cites WP:MISSION. MISSION deals with overly promotional wording, which the majority argue is not the case here. MISSION is also an essay, and while following essays is generally a good idea, it can be overcome by consensus. That being said there is no consensus where the mission statement should appear as different recommendations for location are discussed. AlbinoFerret 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Should this article include or omit the official "mission statement" of this ship? LavaBaron (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Omit Mission Statement. As per WP:MISSION, directly placing an official mission statement into the body of the article should be avoided except when it asserts notability or has been the subject of commentary by secondary sources. Further, the mission statement of this ship repeats information which is provided in greater detail 3 lines following it, creating a redundant and poorly composed / constructed flow of text. LavaBaron (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include as it's a relevant, short, and properly sourced fact about the subject of this article. Does this minor content spat really rise to the level of a thoroughly canvassed RfC? - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong include WP:MISSION is written for organisations and companies, not boats. The boat's mission statement is not in any way promotional or flowery and it is not written by the boat owners but by a reliable, secondary source. This is not the self-written, self-promoting mission statement of a company. It is a detailed description of the different roles and functions this boat is capable of performing and it is written and supported by Professional Marine Magazine, an eminently reliable source. There is absolutely no basis for blanking perfectly NPOV and essential encyclopaedic information about the mission and functions of the boat which is also presented at the lead and was used to support the DYK hook description "pumping station" and which was justified, explained, presented and passed at DYK, including an additional functionality of the boat not found in the rest of the article. Quote from the link at the DYK review: The mission statement also includes an additional functionality of the boat as a "mobile fuel station" which was not in the article before I added it. Even David Eppstein, the final DYK reviewer, commented about the description "pumping station" which is sourced only in the mission statement. This bizarre removal of crucial, reliably-sourced, details for the boat through edit-warring is not constructive, should never have occurred and should stop immediately. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I spent a good deal of time writing this article and creating the images used in it so I, of course, appreciate the extremely passionate interest you seem to have taken in it, "Dr. K." It's great we have a tool like the RfC to rapidly resolve minor content disagreements. I'd like to just kindly ask, however, you try to avoid emotive words like "bizarre" to describe others edits. If you might kindly consider refactoring your comment above, I'd be okay with you then deleting this comment of mine. Thanks very much - LavaBaron (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice try to paint my description of your bizarre edit-warring as "emotive". Nothing "emotive" about it. Just a fair and factual description of an unjustified removal of perfectly valid content followed by an equally unjustified edit-warring on your part to get it removed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry my request upset you, it was not my intention. Let's try to work together to dial this RfC down a notch. My objective with this article was to get it advanced to GA so it would be great to get a fast outcome on this RfC - whichever way it goes - so article stability doesn't become an issue. Let's start a clean slate and partner up as a team on this, Dr. K - sound good? LavaBaron (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry my request not to describe me as bizarre upset you Again, please stop your personal comments. I see you experience some difficulty doing so, but I am patient, so I will wait until you comply with my repeated cautions about personal comments. Please stop adding comments with baseless insinuations. Thank you again. As far as cooperating to make this article the best it can be, it goes without saying, as long as you adhere by basic policies such as CIV and NPA. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, no need to apologize, I have a pretty thick skin! I wasn't offended by the "bizarre" comment about me, I just wanted to make sure the RfC stayed focused on the topic, instead of becoming a tête-à-tête, as sometimes occurs. Anyway, thanks for your reply and looking forward to our new collaborative approach, Dr K! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, no need to apologize, I have a pretty thick skin! But I did not aplogise to you since I had no reason to do so. I was quoting your own words. Please read my reply carefully. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether you did or didn't apologize for calling me bizarre, I'm going to GF assume it was unintentional (honestly, I've been called worse! j/k). Let's just leave it there and refocus the discussion on content. Thanks, Dr K! LavaBaron (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leaving irrelevant assumptions about perfectly explained descriptions out of this discussion will really help move this discussion along. Thank you for your cooperation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Anytime! LavaBaron (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Whether you did or didn't apologize for calling me bizarre... I never called you "bizarre". I called your removal of the mission statement, through edit-warring, "bizarre". I hope you can understand the difference. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a very unique manner of interacting with editors, such as responding to a rather demure comment of mine by shooting back "quit badgering me and don't clutter this discussion with irrelevant comments" [1], repeatedly wikilinking your replies to "Failure to Get the Point", describing my edits as "bizarre," and then describing my rather timid request to tone it down as a "personal attack" against you. If, in the highly charged environment created by this style of dialog, I misinterpreted you, I apologize. Honestly, I was a little blindsided by it all. Not quite what I was expecting when I came to add some finishing touches to the Leschi article tonight, to say the least. LavaBaron (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please take a moment to pause, reflect, have a beverage, and relax. I (almost) never feel the need to swing my admin mop around but you two are, in the words of Jayne Cobb, starting to damage my calm. - Dravecky (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dravecky: I can't see why you mention "admin mop". My defence against false allegations is perfectly valid. Although the volume of this discussion creates clutter and perhaps should be hatted, please read my points before issuing any warnings to my side. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You avoided replying to my request for diffs regarding your repeated false allegations that I called you personally "bizarre" and "irrelevant" because you know I did not call you anything of the kind. Yet you failed to retract them as I repeteatedly asked you to. That shows that you want to use falsehoods and not retract them. Obviously this not a constructive attitude and doesn't speak well of your editing habits. Using false attacks against other editors and refusing to provide evidence is not an ethical approach to editing. You have a very unique manner of interacting with editors, such as responding to a rather demure demure comment of mine by shooting back... No. With your comments such as I spent a good deal of time writing this article and creating the images used in it so I, of course, appreciate the extremely passionate interest you seem to have taken in it, "Dr. K.", and Okay, I'm sorry my request upset you, it was not my intention. as well as many others, you have attempted to personally attack my motives on the basis of your false allegations of alleged "emotion" and "passion". Good try, but your baiting is all too obvious, so you are advised to stop these underhanded tactics. Putting my username in quotes is also another form of personal attack. In additon, your refusal to retract your baseless allegations shows that you are not engaging constructively in this discussion. I will not try to humour you any further, as you have effectively flooded this RfC with falsehoods and baiting. You can have the last word but I will not give you any futher excuse to clutter this discussion with your false statements and personal atacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 09:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Include, per IAR. While the Mission Statements guidelines (which, let's be honest, are generally aimed at self-promoting corporation articles) tend to dissuade the use of such—and rightfully so, as these are usually filled with bloated, overly self-important corporate bloviation—this is not the case here. It's a pretty clear and concise description of the purpose of the boat (which is part of the infrastructure of the city, so it is not promotional by any means) and gives the reader(s) additional, useful information. Regards, good luck, and play nice. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include - the mission statement is not promotional in any way. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If it belongs anywhere it belongs in the text, in ordinary quotation marks --putting it in a call-out is excessive emphasis. I don't think it adds any particular critical information to say that the mission of a fireboat is to fight fires and respond to emergencies, but I don;t see what harm it does either. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Omit Mission Statement Invited here by Legobot. I read the article and the first three comments (two in favor of keeping mission statement). I didn't read any discussion after the first three comments. This is a good article and an interesting topic. My opinion is that mission statement breaks the flow of the article and it is also redundant as all information from the mission statement is in the second sentence of the article.Gpeja (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Omit Mission Statement Doesn't add anything of note to the article's content that isn't already there without it.--MichaelProcton (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• To Dravecky's comment; I do not dispute it is short and properly sourced. However, the guidelines laid-out in WP:MISSION are there for a good reason and do not give exception for brevity or sourcing. Ship-related articles on WP follow a relatively rote format for reader familiarity and comprehensibility that does not - in cases of good articles - include things like "mission statements." We should not both (a) trump the well-established principles of WP:MISSION, and, (b) depart from established format to create an entirely unique arrangement of an article for this one, very minor and unremarkable, ship (not a disparagement of the vessel - I say this as the person who wrote 99.9% of this article and contributed two of the three images) unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason. It's "short" and "there's a source" doesn't meet the standard of an "overwhelmingly good reason." Encyclopedias just don't include "mission statements" or advertising slogans. LavaBaron (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• To "Dr. K.'s" comment - I assure you, as a person who has more than a tangential awareness of this vessel, who wrote the article, and who escorted it through an unnecessarily delayed DYK occasioned by your mistaken insistence that the hook had to be repeated verbatim in the article (which two different editors ultimately had to correct you on), the mission statement most certainly and absolutely originated with the Seattle Fire Department. Finally, the ship is absolutely included in WP:MISSION. The fact that WP:MISSION doesn't include an exhaustive list of every possible noun in the English language is obviously not a statement of exclusion. This is an organizational component of the Seattle Fire Department, an organization. LavaBaron (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• One more time: The functions and roles of a boat are crucial and required descriptions so that readers are informed about what the boat is capable of doing. It has nothing to do with promotion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One more time: The content of the "mission statement" is repeated in greater detail 3 lines following it so it's unreadably duplicative text that doesn't contribute anything that isn't already there. Further, it violates WP:MISSION and it violates the well-established format that GA-classed ship articles follow (this is not GA-classed, but my hope was to get it there, and, honestly, your sudden decision to inject yourself into this article after your abortive effort to review it at DYK that other editors had to take over is not helpful right now - though the effort is appreciated and taken at GF). LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Again, there were two functionalities that were not included in the rest of the article. Please read what I wrote just above with quotes, but more carefully this time. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No, actually there aren't. (Again, Dr. K., this is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. It's not necessary to pepper your comments with wikilinks to essays like "Failure to Get the Point" when replying to comments by other editors. We can disagree on content and still treat each other with kindness and respect. Thanks again for your contributions.) LavaBaron (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) @Dravecky: I fully agree with your comment. This RfC is also unnecessary but taken along with the unjustifiable edit-warring to remove the perfectly well-sourced and relevant list of functions and roles of the boat points to signs of problematic editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

While I do know we experienced some problematic editing that you were cautioned on by a few editors at my original DYK for this ship, I think this was a good learning experience for you and I don't think it's necessary to inject that into this conversation. Let's keep it focused on the RfC. This is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your strange references to the Gaza strip notwithstanding, I don't think you read my comments above because if you had done so you would have seen clearly that the mission statement included two sourced functionalities for the boat that did not exist in the rest of the article. Now please quit badgering me and don't clutter this discussion with irrelevant comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. K - I'd like to request you not describe other editors contributions using emotive language like "irrelevant comments." I really hope we can work together as a team on improving this article in a spirit of mutual respect. I think you have a lot to bring to this article. Let's start a clean slate, okay? LavaBaron (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One more time: Factual descriptions of your edits are not "emotive", however hard you may be trying to depict them as such. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Once you drop the "emotive" stick, I am willing to work with you to improve the article. Sound good? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* Dismissing other editors opinions in an RfC as "cluttering" and "irrelevant" is simply not nice, Dr. K, nor is twisting the dagger by declaring they are "factual descriptions" of that editor's contributions, nor is Wikilinking to the WP:IDHT essay. While I've gone out of my way to treat you with kindness and decency, I can't compel you to reciprocate. This is the first time I've encountered this behavior in my 11 months on WP so, honestly, I'm not sure how to deal with it other than to voluntarily defer from further participation in this article, which disappoints me because I put a lot of effort into writing it and physically going out and taking the photos that comprise it. But it's not worth this bollocking I'm getting. Good luck. LavaBaron (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I've gone out of my way to treat you with kindness and decency, ... After the multiple NPA warnings that I gave you, please allow me to disagree with this statement. This is the first time I've encountered this behavior... This comment unfortunately indicates that you do not see the other side of the coin, which is your behaviour. Unfortunately, I can't fix that. I also told you multiple times in this discussion that I am willing to work with you as long as you approach this discussion with civility and avoidance of personal comments. Comments such as But it's not worth this bollocking I'm getting. indicate that you still have NPA and CIV problems. Hopefully you can work on that. If despite my best intentions you decide not to participate further, I cannot alter your decision. Only you can do that. But I hope you reconsider. Best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In the space of 30 minutes you twice called me "bizarre," once called me "irrelevant," said you found my opinion "cluttering," and three times wikilinked to "Failure to Get the Point" in your responses. (If that ain't a bollocking I don't know what is!) However, if I failed to AGF your descriptions of me as "bizarre" and "irrelevant" were made in good faith, I absolutely and unreservedly apologize to you. Kindest regards - LavaBaron (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

However, if I failed to AGF your descriptions of me as "bizarre" and "irrelevant" Can you please provide the diffs where I call you personally "bizarre" and "irrelevant"? If not, I would appreciate a retraction of this baseless allegation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you point to a specific diff where I get "cautioned" by an editor, as opposed to just an expression of disagreement with my position regarding the phrasing of the hook? Otherwise, please retract your baseless statement. Also what you think about "my learning experience" is irrelevant so please follow your own advice and focus on the issues and not on other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the entire DYK is you demanding the hook must be repeated verbatim and other editors telling you, no it doesn't [2], [3], etc. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the problems you had at the DYK when you mentioned "problematic editing." If it was not, my genuine apologies. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The topic? You've both wandered off of it. Also, requests for comment often involve more than two involved editors yelling at each other. Perhaps now would be a good time to let that process work? (It's 4:50am here so my need for calm is at a maximum while my tolerance for wiki-drama is at the barest of minimums.) Let's all assume good faith about our fellow editors and let this RfC play out, shall we? Yes, let's do that. - Dravecky (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. LavaBaron (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comatmebro - I agree with you the mission statement is not promotional. Is it, however, useful for this short article (keep in mind the entire content of the mission statement is repeated, but in greater detail, less than 3 lines later)? LavaBaron (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The statement can be placed in a call-out box. If ever there was actually a use for quote boxes in Wikipedia articles, this would be a perfect case. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leschi (fireboat). 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/20160304122333/http://www.dakotacreek.com/construction_projects/leschi.html to http://www.dakotacreek.com/construction_projects/leschi.html

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) 00:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)