Jump to content

Talk:Project 22220 icebreaker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LK-60Ya-class icebreaker. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2018

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Project 22220 icebreaker at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LK-60Ya-class icebreaker → Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreaker – The Russian "LK" designators date back to the early 1990s plans to rebuild the national icebreaker fleet after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; see "Perspective types of Arctic icebreakers and their principal characteristics" by Tsoy et al (Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, 1995 (POAC'95) pp. 13–26). To put it simple, "LK-60N" refers to "any 60-megawatt nuclear-powered icebreaker" but does not specify a particular design; in theory, there could be multiple different ship classes all belonging to the "LK-60" power category. However, the design office (CDB Iceberg), shipyard (OSK) and owner (Rosatomflot) all refer to the new nuclear-powered icebreakers primarily using the project number ("Project 22220") and there is (as of today) only one class under construction (and if 22220M is ever realized, that fits within the same class article as a further development). The proposed name would also be in line with other recent icebreaker projects such as Project 21900 icebreaker which do not have an established class name (and knowing the Russians' fondness on their project numbers, I doubt we will ever see one from WP:RS). The disambiguator "nuclear-powered" is redundant for the English Wikipedia but in line with references ("атомный ледокол проекта 22220" scores over 5500 hits in Google; dropping атомный only increases that to hair over 7000). Tupsumato (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Due to lack of comments, I have notified WikiProject Ships separately about the proposed move (something I should have done in the beginning); the discussion should obviously kept open until we have reached consensus. As for the proposal above, I forgot to mention that "LK" stands for "ledokol" (Russian: Ледокол) which translates to "icebreaker"; an equivalent English abbreviation would be "IB" which actually has been used sometimes (see e.g. here). Tupsumato (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:NC-SHIP, this is an overly specific ship type for a class of ships. The article title should be "Project 22220 icebreaker". Llammakey (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would also be in line with the title of Arktika-class icebreaker. Should I modify the proposal above or can we just handle it when (if) the article is renamed. Tupsumato (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with doing the change when the page is moved. Support move to Project 22220 icebreaker. Llammakey (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts between User:Tupsumato and User:Blueginger2

[edit]

The following edit conflicts (either ongoing or partially solved) have been identified:

  • use of italics instead of "(planned)" to indicate estimates for future dates; see discussion on WP:SHIPS talk page (no replies)
  • using "record time" to describe the sea trials of Ural based on single source with no further explanation; presently marked with {{clarify}}
  • italicization of "Lider"; not italicized as per WP:NCSHIPS as the class is not named after the lead ship
  • inclusion of shipyard in "Ships in class" article
    • while shipyard was previously included in the table, I have now considered this information redundant as all ships in class are built at the same shipyard and there are no plans to built Project 22220 icebreakers elsewhere
    • merging rows breaks table formatting (found the error and fixed it)
  • ship names
    • I replaced {{lang-rus}} with {{lang-ru}} (as per "This template is a suggested modification of {{Lang-ru}}. It's planned to be merged with {{Lang-ru}} later."), gave literal translations for Arktika and Sibir, and indicated namesake for others
    • decided to remove pronunciation for ship names from class article; if this information is considered important (which I'm inclined to disagree), it could be included in the ship-specific articles
  • italicization of document name Modernization of the transport system of Russia (2002–2010)

We have got to the point of blanket reverting each other's changes and this must stop. Thus, I've asked other editors from WP:SHIPS to help with solving these issues. Tupsumato (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lider is not italicized. No ship named Lider, therefore not italicized. Document names are italicized. Shipyard is a matter of personal taste. Not entirely sure why the yard number is included in the class article, that's really not important to anything other than the ship-specific articles or the shipyard article itself. Can the record time be included as a note? If all of the sources but one says something else, the record time should be noted, but not introduced as the only information on the subject. Llammakey (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My beef with mentioned "record time" is that the cited reference only includes it as a standalone statement without further information. Presumably they compare Ural to Arktika and Sibir, but without anything else but those two words it's very difficult to see it as anything but, at most, shipyard tooting one's own horn. I don't recall Sudostroenie.info and PortNews mentioning it, but I'll have to run a few Russian-language searches to verify that.
I'm inclined to agree that yard numbers are not needed in class article. It's enough to have them in ship-specific articles. However, I'd like to keep them at least until the articles for Yakutiya and Chukotka are created. Perhaps I'll crack some stubs open tonight. Tupsumato (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Tupsumato and Llammakey. On the issue of "record time", that's clearly puffery and should be removed. Readers can easily see from the dates that the trials were completed quickly, we don't need to editorialize (regardless of whether sources do or do not; they are not held to the same standards). Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the major milestones (delivery of Ural and launching of Yakutiya) to the relevant articles. I decided to drop the "record time" from the class article to keep the coverage consistent with the other ships but left it with {{clarification needed}} in the ship article. Yard numbers were also dropped from the table as we now have dedicated articles for each vessel of the class. Tupsumato (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User:Blueginger2 is again italicizing planned dates although there's no clear policy to use visual formatting for that purpose and referring to Ural's sea trials being completed in "record time" despite there being no other source to support the claim that this Russian-language article. I'm reverting the formatting changes but leaving "record time" with {{dubious}} tag. It would be nice if these issues could be discussed here instead of edit summaries. Also, please stop referring to my edits as "vandalism". Tupsumato (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_22220_icebreaker&oldid=1213255276"