Talk:Groote Beer (botter yacht)

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn).

This page was proposed for deletion by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) on 15 November 2021.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Requested move 21 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Groote Beer (botter yacht) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

result:
No consensus. See no agreement below to rename this page nor settlement on any given potential title. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to change the title/qualifier. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Groote Beer (botter yacht) → ? – The current name is way too complex. Further to the AfD, I suggest renaming, for example to Groote Beer (yacht), Groote Beer (boat), or Groote Beer (barge). Each of these three would be an improvement over the present and has pros and cons. I leave it to the community to choose the best option. It can also be another option. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Colin M (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A botter is a type of Dutch barge, so move to Groote Beer (barge). 162 etc. (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but a botter yacht (or at least, this one) is not a barge. It is a yacht with the same hull shape as a Dutch barge. That does not make it a barge. SpinningSpark 16:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark: maybe you can fix this in the article, using the NYT reference? Right now the article is confusing at this point. gidonb (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name is too complex. How is two words complex?. My preference is to keep as is, but of the offered disambiguations, yacht is the better one. SpinningSpark 16:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your input! More opinions are welcome! gidonb (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Groote Beer (boat). Yacht or barge, they're both boats. SS Groote Beer, on the other hand, was a ship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Groote Beer per WP:NATURAL. After seeing Necrothesp's reference to SS Groote Beer again (I had looked at it before), it finally hit me that Groote Beer is the best location for this topic. Groote Beer is presently a redirect to SS Groote Beer. !voting in one's own nomination is a bit unusual but because I did not take any position on outcomes before -only on the need to move- this opinion is complimentary and not redundant to the intro. gidonb (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that the ship is rather more notable than the yacht, so at best that should be a disambiguation page. SpinningSpark 19:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have good news for you! With two items we do not need a disambiguation page at all. Just a "for" template on each page and that's it. We can go 100% NATURAL! gidonb (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that only applies if one topic is more notable than the other. Otherwise we use a disambiguation page. See WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since one vessel's name is Groote Beer and the other one is SS Groote Beer, there is no need for the redirect Groote Beer to SS Groote Beer or for SS Groote Beer to move (not debated), making the entire question of WP: PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY into a non-issue, and WP:NOPRIMARY into a distraction. This is best managed by WP:NATURAL. I hope this is what you meant. Wasn't sure. If not, we can agree to disagree :-) gidonb (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the ship was commonly referred to as the Groote Beer, so this is a complete non-argument. Still WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both vessels have a brief and well-recognized natural name, SS Groote Beer and Groote Beer. In this case, we go by WP:NATURAL. Within reason, natural disambiguation should take preference over dabs. This one is very much within reason. Let's see what others think because yes/no discussions under someone's opinion (in this case mine) serve absolutely no purpose. gidonb (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted the guidelines here. The barge/yacht does not become primary just because the ship has "SS" in front of its name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the entire question of WP:PRIMARY is irrelevant when there are only two concepts that can be naturally disambiguated. This exchange reminds of Uri Geller and the repetitive questions of the "British Spoon Council".[1] Pure comedy. I will now call my celebrity lawyer ;-) gidonb (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I understand your position, you don't need to keep repeating it as if we hadn't. I just don't agree that it will lead to an optimal article title. In point of of fact, NATURAL does not prescribe that it should always take precedence over parenthetical disambiguation. References to ships commonly drop their prefix, so SS Groote Beer is nearly always called just Groote Beer. Major ships are almost automatically notable and would usually be expected to take the primary name unless they are named after something that is also notable. The prefix tells the reader they are going to an article on a ship. There is no such prefix for boats. Names of boats, like ships, will rarely be obvious that it is a boat. A disambiguator is quite handy for this (and would definitely be needed if the name were not in Dutch). There is a common precedent for disambiguating a non-obvious member of a class even when it does not strictly need disambiguating, and that is disambiguators for US towns per WP:PLACEDAB. SpinningSpark 13:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With "In point of [] fact, NATURAL does not prescribe that it should always take precedence over parenthetical disambiguation" you are partially repeating my opinion a few comments back. Within reason, however, natural disambiguation should be preferred. Two vessels, with brief names, their own names, pointing at each other, is very much within reason. Between the two, having one dab is the status quo. As I said in the intro, it can be shortened and that would be an improvement. Not the optimum (uncluttered names and natural disambiguation) but real improvement. Blame it on me, but I do not see the point of all this arguing under my opinion. I see nothing new and it keeps coming. I suggested the other solution myself. The one I point at is best but there are other solutions that are better than the present. That's a given from the intro. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.