Talk:Viking Line

Fair use rationale for Image:Ng li.gif

Image:Ng li.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Current status

The current status of former ships seems really like information that is really difficult to keep up to date. Do we really need that in the table? When red links turn blue, people can get the information straight from each ferry's article. That is a much better way in my opinion. bbx 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If the general consensus is that the current status should go then it can go, but as this is a matter of personal interest for me I've been trying to keep the table up to date as much as possible. Most of the ships in the list have a steady status anyway, only the ex-Viking 3, Turella and Diana II can be expected to have any fluctuations in the future, so keeping it up to date will not be a huge job. And regarding the red links... while it would be great to see article made for all those ships, I strongly doubt it will happen. Almost every blue link currently on the list is mainly my work, and I have no particular desire to creata articles for those ships. For that reason as well I'd say that keeping the current status in is justified. If more ships from the list get articles done for them, I'd be more than willing to reconsider. -- Kjet 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, your work on all ferry articles is much appreciated. There is something in the Manual of Style that says to avoid using words like currently. I suggest we keep the table as it is now, but change the wording from "Currently M/S Fantaasia for Kystlink" to "As of 2007 M/S Fantaasia for Kystlink". Can we agree on that? bbx 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you appriciate my work. Although mostly it's just fun. I'm a bit worried though that a Finland-Swede is reading my ferry articles as they're mostly based on Fakta om Fartyg and I don't actually speak swedish that well... hopefully there aren't too many gross errors there.

Changing "currently" into "as of yyyy" is fine with me - however as a practival question: what exactly does "as of" signify? Because it's a bit unclear to me if it means "currently (2007)" or "from 2007 onwards". This is probably a silly question, but the MoS page doesn't quite explain it and it's a term I haven't really seen outwide Wiki. -- Kjet 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"As of" means "at this point of time", anything beyond the date given is unspecified. Basically it is the date the information was (last) verified. And don't worry, your articles are good :) bbx 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited the table now. It's not the best solution, but it will have to do for now. I also found another guideline Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly. bbx 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing we could do to improve the list would be changing the headline from "current status" into "status as of 2007" and the wording of the individual entries to "since 2000 M/S Regina Baltica for Tallink" (or just "M/S Regina Baltica for Tallink") format, which would look neater, be more informative and save trouble for ships that (probably) won't have their operator changed every year. We should also edit the ship lists of Color Line, DFDS, Silja Line and Tallink to follow the same wording as this one. -- Kjet 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep that sounds better. bbx 09:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I've changed the Silja Line article to follow the same format. -- Kjet 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)