Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogging (Naval)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus for deleting, moving, merging, burying in soft peat and recycling as firelighters or whatever. See Wikipedia:Merge if anyone wants to pursue that option. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogging (Naval) and Sagging (Naval)

These two articles appear to be - and probably only ever will be - dictdefs. I think commentary on what might or might not have caused the Prestige oil spill belongs in that article, not in one paragraph stubs on naval terminology. kingboyk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Seems to me that quite a lot could be written about the causes and effects. Not much in the articles at present all right. Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any possible way to expand it, even if there were somebody volunteering for the job right this minute. This is just a term specific to the seafaring trade, which like any trade has its jargon. Brian G. Crawford 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have a look at Strength of ships which could itself be expanded considerably. Anyway, if nobody wants to expand Hogging (Naval) and Sagging (Naval) right now I suggent turning them into redirects to that article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Hogging/Sagging these are engineering terms to do with the stress acting upon beams, and not specific to ships in any way. Quite a bit more could be written about them. porges 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• As the original author of Strength of ships I'm sort of biased, but a Redirect there wouldn't cause any serious damage. That article could be expanded (and should be a bit if we redirect, to cover those specific terms in more detail), but is ok for a basic intro. Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Strength of Ships, which looks like a significant article. This could have sections on hogging and sagging (currently a line each I believe) before we would need separate articles. Stephen B Streater 14:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• As the author of both articles, I'm definitely biased towards Keep, I did not know what the term meant when I read it in an news.com.au article, so I thought I would look it up at the wikipedia, I did and there was no entry, so I hunted around a little more and found out what it meant. That is why I believe it should be kept. Fosnez 02:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't keep an explanation of what they are in Wikipedia. They're notable aspects of how ship structures behave under loads, and something that anyone designing a ship has to take into account. I have a naval architecture degree and agree that we should have some description for sagging and hogging. The question is, in my view, should we have better sections in the Strength of ships article on sagging and hogging, or separate articles? I don't know that they really have to be separate. It won't hurt to make those two articles redirect to an improved section of the Strength of ships article, I think. For what it's worth, I also added a diagram of sagging and hogging to the Strength of ships article (and, if we keep the other articles, you can add it to those too). Georgewilliamherbert 05:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.