Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force

Substitution templates

As I'm rapidly wearing out my keyboard, I've created three templates to help when writing articles. Two are for linking to lifeboat class articles and one for linking to lifeboat station articles. You just need to add a short parameter to avoid three-quarters of your typing.

• {{Lbb}} – Lifeboat, for example {{Lbb|Severn}} will be read as [[Severn class lifeboat|Severn]] and so display as Severn.
• {{Lbc}} – Lifeboat Class, for example {{Lbb|E}} will be read as [[E class lifeboat|E Class]] and so display as E-class.
• {{Lbs}} – Lifeboat Station, for example {{Lbs|Fowey}} will be read as [[Fowey Lifeboat Station|Fowey]] and so display as Fowey.

Enjoy! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Why is this part of WPWATERSPORTS? Lifeboat service is not a watersport, and rescuing fishermen is not concerned with watersports. Wouldn't it be better to be part of WP:TRANSPORT or a new WPEMERGENCY project; or WP:UK? (or WP:MED/EMS) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Former RNLI stations

There are quite a few former RNLI lifeboat stations that were closed. Some reopened as independents but some did not and may not be mentioned at all on WP. If interested editors think there many be a significant number of these, is it worth starting an article on this topic, do you think? If so, I would be happy to take it on if I was notified of any applicable stations. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with RNLI information

Hi, I'm Luke from the social media team at the RNLI - if there is any information you'd like from our archives, please do get in touch and I'll do my best to source it from our heritage team - [email protected], here or on my talk page.

Where I've spotted amends to our pages (ie incorrect boat names) I've worked with HappySailor to get these updated, inline with wikipedia principles - I'm also working to get a webpage added to our site to act as a verifiable source for such information.

Alukeonlife (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To editor Alukeonlife: Hi Luke, good to know you're keen on RNLI input, as am I. There's still a lot to be done, and some lifeboat stations, each with their own fascinating history, still don't have pages on their own. I've been working on some Welsh ones, as well as the main RNLI article. There's a rich vein of information about former RNLI stations (see above), too, which should be tapped sometime. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Should WikiProject Water Sports/RNLI Task Force become it's own WikiProject?

I was reading some articles under the scope of the RNLI Task Force, and noticed that they are not really related to WikiProject Water Sports. As there is a growing community of people who are supporting RNLI and creating and maintaining RNLI pages, we should create our own WikiProject.

Please comment with suggestions to make this possible.

Member of the RNLI task force

Porthysek (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Linking it with watersports isn't intuitive. The RNLI was set up to help commercial shipping, it is only in recent years that leisure users have come to the fore. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, too. Agreeing is easy, though; someone would have to establish and run it - no mean task. This is not something I would currently be able to commit to, though I would be happy to help as much as I can when I get back to editing more. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree to move to it's own WP as not specifically linked to Water Sports. Franko2nd (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Someone tagged the task force as inactive recently but I have changed that back to semi-active as there's still activity and a need for coordination and consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Boats with no name

@Geof Sheppard, Ojsyork, and Tony Holkham: Martin (Ojsyork) has been doing some good work recently, creating more articles, but is making heavy weather of their reception by other editors. I'm pinging other veterans of this task force to see if some discussion might help clear the air and help get us all pulling together.

One specific issue seems to be the treatment of boats with no name. This task force already has some guidance about article titles for these and there's a huge page, WP:SHIPNAME, which has a similar section.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not editing very much at the moment, and not willing to partake in these discussions, having read Martin's user page. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Ships project seems to be concerned with article titles. I think what we need to consider for RNLI lifeboats is how they appear in all the tables that we use on lifeboat and station articles.

I'm leaning towards (no name) as when it is read in conjunction with the column header it can be taken as 'Name - (no name)'. This feels slightly less clunky than 'Name - unnamed'.

Leaving a blank cell could be ambiguous (did we miss the name?)

What is definitely incorrect is unnamed or no name as the italics would suggest it is a name.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When I started out updating Lifeboat pages, I did so very carefully, trying to match what had gone before. In some cases, things I'd changed were jumped on, that lifeboat pages were very precise, and I immediately reverted what I had done. For example, I didn't understand the need to leave Silloth for example, which would appear in Red as the link didn't go anywhere.

I'm now doing my best to create these station pages, have done 12 so far.

There are hundreds of pages where the boat is referred to as Unnamed, capitalized, or italicised, and sometimes Unnamed, but all with this exact text, as it is what has gone before.

I'm sure I may be guilty of some of the variations, but if it is agreed that some form of Unnamed, or Unnamed (or without capitals) be the convention, I'm happy to make the amendments.

I see no value at this time changing EVERY entry to (No Name). Ojsyork (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear All

I have tried a few different styles for the Unnamed entries, and started by revising all the D-class tables.

IMHO, I think that Unnamed (Small, & Unnamed with a capital U) presents well.

Its not italicised, and being smaller sets it apart from normal names.

I don't suppose Geof will alter his view, but maybe some of the rest of you will agree.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no particular preference as all of the options work well enough for me. What does the Lifeboat Enthusiasts Handbook do? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed Ojsyork (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Table format in station articles

Dates in service	Class	ON	Op. No.	Name	Comments
2007−present	Watson-class	ON 1286	16-06	Frank and Anne Wilkinson

I see absolutely no reason for this format of table. Surely the Name of the boat should come first, but in the RNLI world, this is prefixed by an Official Number, and/or an Operational number. MartinOjsyork (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A well-designed table uses the first column to show the way that the rows are ordered. Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Geof

"Every station article that I have looked at has the table ordered by date."

You are fully aware that is Not Correct.

All Station fleet tables were amended earlier this year to be of the same format as Lifeboat Fleet, with the ON and Op numbers first, followed by the name, service dates and class, in order to make some order of the mish-mash that existed previously.

The only tables that are different are the ones you have amended since my updates. Exmouth, Looe, Fowey, Teignmouth, Dart, Torbay, Plymouth, Salcombe.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, I think you misunderstood what I meant by the way the rows are ordered. The tables have each row in successive date order. For example:

At Exmouth	ON	Op. No.	Name	Class
1933–1953	767		Catherine Harriet Eaton	Self-righting
1953–1960	916		Maria Noble	Liverpool
1960–1963	749		George and Sarah Strachan	Watson
1963–1968	838		Michael Stephens	Watson
1968–1970	847		Gertrude	Watson
1970–1983	1012	48-009	City of Birmingham	Solent
1983–1994	1088	33-06	Caroline Finch	Brede
1994–1996	1045	44-019	Louis Marchesi of the Round Table	Waveney
1996–2008	1210	14-12	Forward Birmingham	Trent
2008–2014	1178	12-21	Margaret Jean	Mersey
2014–	1310	13-03	R. and J. Welburn	Shannon

Putting the rows into order for ON, Op No, name or class would put the rows in a different order. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, yes, you are correct, all the station fleet tables are ordered in Service Date order, and have always been arranged in Service date order, even those showing ON and OP numbers first. Ojsyork (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

When I started updates, I primarily worked on Fleet tables, which have ON numbers first. Moving onto Station pages, I found a complete mish-mash of styles, and unaware of any directive on WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force, if they needed work, they were all made the same.

I do not really have a problem with the style of table you have produced above, and if that is what the majority prefer, then we make them all the same.
In Service, ON, Op, Name, Class, Comments

(I still think In Service, as it is consistent, and works better than At XXXX. At XXXX works fine for Bude, but not for Porthdinllaen, which creates a very wide column with no data. However, We discussed On Station as an alternative?) Martin Ojsyork (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

List of former RNLI stations

In a moment of madness, I decided I would create a List of former RNLI stations. Primarily because I know some pages already exist, Teesmouth, Robin Hood's Bay etc, which maybe aren't being seen enough. And I have some information to create more pages.

However, it needs more work, the list is incomplete, all collaboration welcomed.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

List of RNLB lifeboats

I have come across a rather curious List of RNLB lifeboats. Its introduction states that 'this is a list of notable RNLB coastal rescue lifeboats'. It has a list of about 40 links to Wikipedia articles about individual RNLI lifeboats. There is no context to why they have been deemed 'notable', nor are they in any order that I can see.

My instinct is that the page isn't needed. There have been no substantial edits since it was created in 2017 (although it is getting half a dozen readers every day). All the pages are included in Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by number and Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by name which have the benefit of being in a logical order. My instinct is to nominate the page for deletion, but I'm open to other editor's thoughts before I do that. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep

Someone's hard work, maybe needs improving, but useful.

Seems a little contrived to say that all the info is included in Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by number and Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats by name, when you have only just created those in the last week?

MartinOjsyork (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Article assessments

I recently enabled article assessments for all of the RNLI related articles (query, change) — thanks to Geof and others for the help in filling these out — this led me to finding a couple independent lifeboat stations that had been labelled as part of this task force; I've since removed them but let me know if you think this wasn't the right call / feel free to revert (same goes for any of my assessments):

• Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service
• Lepe Inshore Rescue

Cheers, Aluxosm (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way. There are a lot of connections between independent services and the RNLI. Independents often use old RNLI lifeboats and stations, and exercise together. Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring

• The Edit warring on Rnli pages has got to stop. For the last year, I have had my updates systematically amended on many pages. Fleet pages amended, sometimes within minutes of my updates, ALL the South West stations, and recently Clacton-on-Sea, and Cromer, with their own descriptions for lifeboats, and deleting standard formatting. There is no valid reason for updates, other than they doesn't approve of pretty much anything I've added, and they are imposing their own view of how things should be. Not collaborative whatsoever. Previous discussions have fallen on deaf ears. It's time this stopped.

Ojsyork (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would add... There is so much work needs doing to create pages, especially in the South West which seems to be your main area of interest. Why are you spending your time amending work that has only just been done, and especially deleting detail which is perfectly valid?

Ojsyork (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ojsyork: I'm sorry if you think that my editing is edit warring. To me it is just 'being bold'. I know you and I will never completely agree on some things, but my edits are only intended to improve pages. They are not being done to you, rather they are being done to articles that I consider can be improved. For example, where a citation gives a page range for a whole book I replace it with more specific page numbers. I know you don't think this necessary, but many people do and it does not detract from what you have written. I find the five reversions you have made to my edits in the last week very unhelpful, but I didn't consider them to be edit warring until you raised the matter here.

I am not following you around looking for new edits to change. One of the things on my 'to do' list is to take a look at all the unasessed pages recently identified by Aluxosm. While I am looking at these pages I deal with any obvious errors or changes that could improve them. For example, Clacton-on-Sea Lifeboat Station was created by you on 24 March, your last edit was on 10 August, and I made edits on 26 October.

Edit warring includes changing format just to suit your own preference.

Vandalism is malicious deletion of content

I'm sorry to have upset you with my few reversions of your work. How it feels when the boot is on the other foot.

In my view, your persistent amendments are not improving anything.

• Inconsistent formatting
• Crazy lifeboat types that don't even match what you set up years ago. (One page had a mix of Peake, Self-righter and Standard Self-righter).
• Endless pointless lists of page references.
• Sortable tables. WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED SORTABLE TABLES.
• Removal or relocation of ON and OP definitions.
• Table sorting.
• Deleting Pre-ON numbers
• Adding lifeboat before and after stations in comments - this is just duplicating what is already on the fleet pages, and doubling any remedial work should things change.
• Being absolutely clueless about presentation.

There was nothing wrong with Clacton-on-Sea. You didn't add any value. You just changed the format to suit your own preferences, and that is edit warring.

You edited Burnham-on-Crouch. The page was only 22 days old. Everything was checked and verified. You just changed the format to suit your own preferences, and that is edit warring.

You have changed my amendments on every last page in the South West. And where you can, you delete what I have added.

I spent a great deal of time sorting out the mess that was the lifeboat list on both Lizard and Appledore pages, and put tables in some sensible order, only for you to come along within days, and change it all.

I started added Pre-ON numbers. Its vital for identifying movement of early boats. For example, West Hartlepool had one boat, moved between 2 stations, and given three names. Without adding the Pre-number, its impossible to follow the progression. But you delete these at every opportunity.

You have been a member of this group for 10 years, and have had plenty of time to create pages in your own style. But you didn't. Now someone else has taken up the challenge, and created 150 station pages, why on earth do you feel the need to prove them wrong, and change everything they have done.

It's not right, and not acceptable, and whether it is Edit Warring or Vandalism, it has got to stop.

I REALLY don't wish to be at odds with anyone. Everyone else seems very happy at my contribution to the RNLI pages.

I wonder why you don't spend the energy creating new South West pages that are missing, instead of trying to correct what doesn't need correcting.

I'm doing my best to create pages with a standard format, but for whatever reason, I've upset you early on, and you now just seem intent on changing everything I do.

Do you wonder why I'm frustrated with it all.

Ojsyork (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Martin, you need to tone down your complaints; they can't all be dealt with at once. I suggest you raise one or two at a time and deal with each civilly. Just throwing out a lot of accusations is not constructive, and will more likely attract sanctions than it will sort out problems. Just friendly advice from a concerned colleague of you both. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

After further reflection, I will stop now.

I have no wish to be at odds with anyone.

I just want treating with some respect, and I've said my piece.

I have no confidence anything will change, but it would seem that if I create further fuss, I will be the one that's in the wrong, which is far from the case.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. I'm always happy for you or anyone else to discuss why you think my editing is wrong. You've done that before elsewhere and, despite what you think, I have made some changes to the way I do things. I still believe my edits comply with the policies and guidelines but I recognise that sometimes these are open to interpretation, and in those cases your interpretation does not have to be the same as mine.

The thread above has been edited to remove all reference to specific persons or Vandalism.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hartlepool

Today I just completed one of the hardest station pages to create, Hartlepool.

It's taken about 4 months.. but with a big break in the middle, as the information didn't tally. But there is now a new history book.

Its my 158th page. It completes the list of wiki pages for All the active RNLI stations in the UK, IOM and CI.

Just 30 or so left to do for Ireland.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Good work. Congrats. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Dear All

As the last year progressed, I've been doing my best, not just to create pages, but to keep up with the ever changing details of lifeboats and stations. However, the majority of these updates are gained from individual stations updating their facebook pages, a source which maybe sometimes be frowned upon as reliable?

So I would like to ask, what would you all prefer...?

a, that we operate the pages up to one year out of date, and don't update regularly, or
b, update as we go, and not worry too much about the citations, knowing one will be along shortly!

I see Geof has, quite rightly I suppose, added some "" tags to some of the entries on the List of RNLI stations, although as a regular lifeboat page editor, I don't understand why you wouldn't just make the correction. Are we not all on the 'same team'? I'm not quite sure what this aims to achieve, other than highlight someone else's deficiencies. Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort given that a new handbook will be out in a matter of days, which will validate the majority, if not all, of the entries.

Your comments please...

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Martin, I do understand how frustrating this collaborative project can be, but we have to live with it. The citation needed tags are not, I believe, intended as a direct criticism of your comprehensive work on lifeboat stations, merely a statement of fact - text is either reliably-sourced or not - there is no other category. And don't forget that a tag is preferable to the alternative, which is deleting unsourced or unreliably-sourced text, and no-one wants that, when we know there will be a reliable source coming out before long. So if a new handbook is due out soon, you could wait for that. If there is a risk of unsourced data being deleted (though it can be retrieved from the article's history, so is never lost) then an RNLI primary source would be a stop-gap, and I don't think it's a problem to use it, rather than nothing. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham

I wasn't taking anything personally.

I think the action is correct - but maybe not in our best interest.

If as a group we wish to highlight our deficiencies to everyone else, and risk stuff being deleted, then maybe we should just not make any updates throughout the year, and leave it all until a new reference work comes out.

I was asking what was the preference - regular updates and no citations, or ignore new information until it can be verified? Ojsyork (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Purely from Wikipedia's point of view (i.e. guidelines) the latter is preferred. My personal opinion was what I was offering as well. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

200 Done

Dear All

When I started out updating Lifeboat pages just 1 year ago, it was out of abject frustration that pages were out of date. With pages up to 5 years out of date, I thought my contributions would help. I've done my best to update what I can, match the style that went before, but to try to ensure a consistent format across all the pages.

I then discovered that I could produce station pages, and worked out enough ways to find sufficient content, a format that I'm happy with, and I trust most other folks are too, by the comments I receive. By the middle of the year, I realised I'd completed over 100 pages, so I then set myself the target of 200, to be completed in this RNLI 200th Anniversary year.

Isle of Whithorn Lifeboat Station, completed today, is no. 200.

May I wish you all a Happy Christmas and best wishes for 2025.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)