This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
In order to avoid unnecessary work in this article and Vaygach (1989 icebreaker), I ask User:BlackFlanker to participate in to the discussion regarding reliable sources here.
When I wrote the previous revision of the article, I used the following sources:
Russian Maritime Register of Shipping (RMRS) "Register of Ships", available at [1] for all vessels currently in class (including both Taymyr and Vaygach); and
article Atomivoimalla päin ahtojäitä, published in Navigator magazine issue 4/1988 (pages 32-37) when the first vessel was delivered.
BlackFlanker has partially replaced these sources with the following:
Fleetphoto.ru, a Russian-language collaborative, user-editable database of vessels; and
Rosatom website about the nuclear-powered fleet, available here.
In my opinion, Fleetphoto.ru fails WP:RS as a collaborative, user-editable database similar to Wikipedia. While I acknowledge the Rosatom website as a reliable source, I consider RMRS to have more reliable data as the classification society data is based on the technical documentation where as a company website is more likely to have factual errors as the person creating the content may not have access to the actual data. Thus, in the event of conflict between these two sources (e.g. main dimensions), I consider RMRS information to be more accurate. Furthermore, while the Navigator article is an older offline source, the article was written at the time when the vessel was finished with support from the shipyard and contains, among other things, technical drawings of the vessel. I consider the information therein to be reliable.
Few other notes regarding edits that I reverted:
The field "commissioned" should not be used for civilian vessels as per Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide; it is intended for warships together with the other "-commissioned" fields. The date in the RMRS database refers to the date when the vessel was handed over from the shipyard to the owner.
Furthermore, the date when the ship was completed without reactor is cited from the Navigator article; the vessel was handed over from the Finnish shipyard on that date and moved to Leningrad where the reactor was installed. It is essential information and somewhat unique for Taymyr and Vaygach when compared to other Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers which had the reactors installed at the shipyard where they were built.
IMHO, "active" is unnecessary in addition to "in service" which is generally used in ship databases, lists etc.; the only disambiguator I can think of using would be "in limited service". While this is a minor stylistic issue, I would rather avoid unnecessary text in the infobox.
Lists within the infobox should be with the asterisk (*); this is according to the usage guide linked above.
While the hangar is dimensioned for Ka-32, do you have a WP:RS that the helicopter is carried onboard? To my knowledge, icebreakers do not regularly carry helicopters anymore.
I will refrain from further edits before we have agreed on the above issues. Everyone else is of course welcome to participate in the discussion.
However, I would like to add that the emphasis should be on factual information and reliable sources; few of the edits I brought up are, as I said, minor stylistic issues that are not that important. Tupsumato (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tupsumato, I can agree with most of your claims about editing of the articles, especially about the informations used in infobox such as use of the "-commissioned" fields only for warships or using asterisks for creating lists, but for further use of references I think it would be better to keep online availabe sources (like those that refer to ship's significant dates) to help visitors confirm these informations if they would want to do so. I have no experience with the Navigator magazine, especially with such old edition like that one from 1988, so I don't know how to consider this as a reliable source when there is no online copy, but if you have any experiences with the magazine and you would still insist to use this as a reference then using it as an additional source to those online ones should not be a problem, or maybe we could try to find more reliable online references to prove what the Fleetphoto.ru states.
Another source I provided lexicon.dobrohot.org claims pretty much the same as (according to you) the Navigator article about the completion of the Taymyr icebreaker without a reactor when it was launched in Finland in 1987, so this could stay as a reference, couldn't it?
Ultimately, there shoudln't be anything wrong with the "Ship aircraft" (Aircraft carried) field since the Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide says this field "Used to indicate the number and type of aircraft a ship can carry" not to indicate type of aircraft the ship carry regularly.
Navigator is a Finnish professional maritime magazine that has been published since 1927. As per Wikipedia:Offline sources, even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. If we can find and add supporting online sources (such as the one you have provided now), I'm fine by that, but I don't accept that an article that has the most detailed description of the ship I have ever seen published, complete with technical drawings provided by the shipyard, is ignored simply because it's "old" and "offline". Typically this kind of information is only published in the "initial articles" around the time the ship is delivered (in this case in the 1980s); decades later, articles typically repeat the same set of information (e.g. main dimensions and key features) without introducing any new information. If incorrect data enters this "loop", it's repeated over and over again until it becomes a "fact".
As for technical details, I would still like to rely primarily on classification society database. The database entry on IHS Sea-web seems to support that, and has some additional interesting information I will add to the article later.
I stand corrected about "aircraft carried"; your usage of the field is correct.
Tupsumato I just want inform you I found some references about Taymyr's and Vaygach's dimensions, interestingly all quite well match with the icebreaker's dimensions stated at the Rosatomflot and not wih the data at the Rs-class. The refs are following: Vaygach, Taymyr, ArcTech, GlobalSecurity (curiously, this one claims displacement 18,000 tons) and Bellona (notice this article is from 1997).
As for the significant dates, I still didn't manage to find anything specific, articles often use to say only dates when the icebreakers were either completed or sent into service.
Unfortunately I have not been able to look for references for the article as of yet. However, I did some WP:OR and asked around, and one of the suggestions I got is that the <150 m length is the length of the hull without towing notch and the 150+ length includes the additional structures in the stern that are not part of the watertight hull. However, we need WP:RS to support this. I'm not sure how realiable "CruiseMapper" is when it comes to nuclear-powered icebreakers that have never carried any cruise passengers (and they use my photographs without proper attribution, so perhaps their data is also from Wikipedia...), but Arctech should know how long the ship their predecessor has built is. Of course, sometimes the length changes over the lifetime of the vessel if something is built in the bow or in the stern. There may also be differences between sister ships (e.g. modified towing notch for Vaygach).
Let's keep searching. I'll try to find some more offline articles from the time when the ship was built when I have time to look into the paper sources... Tupsumato (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article has the following text: "The vessel's extreme length, without the stern crinoline, is 150.0m", reinforcing my previous assumption albeit with a different number. On the other hand, this article (of which I have an offline copy) says "Length 150.2 m", as does the abstract of this article. Tupsumato (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Taymyr (1987 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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
