Talk:Tally Ho (yacht)

YT channel's metrics removed [1]

The documentation of rebuilding of Tally Ho is as important a part of history of the boat as any of the other parts. The metrics of the channel indicate the notability of the rebuilding. I believe the edit that removed the metrics [2] did not improve the article and should be restored. Ward20 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC).

I removed them because the metrics aren't applicable to the boat itself. The metrics aren't about the boat, they are about the success of the YT channel. By the same logic, we don't put Nielsen TV ratings in articles that have been covered by documentaries, unless the ratings themselves were significant. For instance, the Apollo 11 moon landing article mentions documentaries about the mission, but the ratings of those documentaries are not germane to the subject.

YT metrics aren't indicators of notability (from WP notability guidelines) of the boat per se. If the project didn't have a YT channel, and were still covered by media or local press like it was, it would still be notable enough for an article. I do agree that the YT channel and his Patreon have been instrumental in funding the project, but the metrics themselves aren't notable as far as YT channels go, and aren't really germane to a small sailing boat.

Including YT metrics makes the article suffer from WP:RECENTISM, and just appear to try to "buff up" the significance of the boat.  — sbb (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

When I used "notability" I didn't have Wikipedia's guidelines about article inclusion in mind. The notability I was thinking of was to let the reader know the scope of the documentation and how many people were watching the rebuilding of the boat. Whether the YT channel meterics are high or low as far as far as YT channels go is moot. The metrics just document the scope and views of the documentation of the rebuild which is part of the history of the boat.

The wikipedia article does mention metrics of the television broadcast of the Apollo 11 Landing at the time, which is a media documentation of the event. In the article it says: "Twenty percent of the world's population watched humans walk on the Moon for the first time", and "Despite some technical and weather difficulties, ghostly black and white images of the first lunar EVA were received and broadcast to at least 600 million people on Earth."

The rebuilding of Tally Ho is an event in the history of the boat. The YT channel documentation is mentioned in a good portion of the references. The YT channel is significant to the history boat, just as the TV coverage of Apollo 11 is significant to the history that journey.

It is not something to get in a lather over, but I still believe the metrics belong in the article. Ward20 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

You said, The wikipedia article does mention metrics of the television broadcast of the Apollo 11 Landing at the time, ... you missed my point. The ratings of the broadcast of the landing are indeed notable, because the event itself (and hence the broadcast) was monumentally significant. The ratings of subsequent documentary movies and shows about Apollo 11 are not.

Again, I agree the YT channel is significant to the boat. But the metrics of the YT channel are unimportant. More significant would be any citation that stated the impact (i.e., money raised) by the YT channel that was spent on the boat. That is meaningful information. But numbers of subs, numbers of views, aren't encyclopedically meaningful.

But more significantly, the publishing of the channel's metrics, citing the channel itself, is WP:OR and a WP:PRIMARY source. If the metrics were reported on by a source such a magazine, news article, news broadcast, etc., then quoting that source about the metrics wouldn't be WP:OR, it would be citing a WP:SECONDARY source, and wouldn't have the same issues. (Personally, I'd still argue that the metrics are needless cruft in the article, but I wouldn't object on OR / PRIMARY grounds).  — sbb (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SHIP conformance (she/her vs. it)

As of the end of April 2024, this article uses both 'she/her' and 'it' when describing Tally Ho:

she / her

4 instances

• "After some years, she worked as a fishing boat..."
• "... who renamed her Tally Ho."
• "... grounding her on the reef. While being floated with empty oil drums, Tally Ho rolled over, and in the process lost her mast, bowsprit, and rudder."

it / its

3 instances

• "sold it to an English boatbuilder to be completely refit."
• "Until 2017, the Albert Strange Association owned the boat and had planned to restore and refit it. The hope was to eventually facilitate its return to the United Kingdom.

Basically equal, save a difference of one. Per MOS:SHIP, Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. So, I picked gender neutral language, as that seems to be the direction most modern references are trending.  — sbb (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Restoration?

Describing what was done to the Tally Ho as a restoration is not correct. The boat was completely rebuilt. The transom and the capstan and a few small parts are all that remain of the original boat. It is true that the intent initially was to restore the original boat. But that idea was given up early in the project. Davefoc (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A valid point that is worth mentioning in the article, though it is a common issue among restoration projects (eg Locomotion No. 1 has the same sort of 100% rebuild history). Leo addressed it himself in this video. See also Ship of Theseus. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)