Talk:MV Liemba

Hi, again, I am not sure this fulfills the requirements for an own page. However, I feel it does. Also the Kigoma page would be seriously overcrowded with all this information (that is highly sought for if you look at other forums). Thanks! User4353 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all the info, User4353. I'm sure it's very useful, but I'm afraid I'm also sure it doesn't meet our criteria for a separate article. I do think we'll have to integrate the text in the Kigoma page. It's quite alright for a lot of information to be there, although we typically don't include more Wikipedia-like information like literature. I'll stick a "merge" template on the article - not to be unkind, but to make sure others see it as well and can voice their opinion here. Again though, great to have this info! JuliasTravels (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I know how to save the article as a separate entity; change the scope of it to something like "Across Lake Tanganyika". This wouldn't be the first case; we have many "Along the..." river itineraries and articles like Ferries in the Mediterranean, Baltic Sea ferries etc. For that we'd preferably need info about some other ferry lines and ships in the lake too. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a travel topic like across Lake Tanganyika or something like that could be great, but it would indeed require a broader scope and more information. Not at all impossible though. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I do see your point. However, let me point out, that this is not a regular ship in "a means of transportation". For most travellers it has a story of its own and for many the journey on the MV Liemba itself is a goal itself. This is also the reason for the "Literature" section. The books should not be seen as "proof" or "source" of information, but these are books (novel) written on the ship. It is a very nice read while on the ship or getting there. Therefore it is information for a traveller and I would love to see it stay because it offers a great deal of utility to travellers. Looking forward to working on this - wherever it ends up being sorted into; if at all ;-) ! User4353 (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey again. I looked through wikivoyage and found several means of transportation that have their own site. So there doesn't seem to be a general rule opposing this. E.g. the https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway or less known, the https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Circum-Baikal_Railway and many others. I do really think that it makes a lot of sense to keep this as a separate article for the undisputed reasons above. This will also help not to overwhelm the currently very basic article of Kigoma. I do not know how the rules are, but I would suggest to remove the merge tag, unless a different consensus will be reached here. All the best and thanks for any help! User4353 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Sure, those are indeed the travel topics and itineraries like suggested above. If you see a chance to transform the article more into that direction, that would be perfect. As I said, it's not that hard if you're willing to put a little effort in. The trick is to make the article more about the itinerary then, and less about the ship - and you've made a start. Include the highlights in terms of sights or nice towns along the route, not only the practicalities. At Itineraries you can find a long list of examples to use. If we can help, let us know. Cheers, JuliasTravels (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't see this article as being finished right now. It is rather something to work on and I do look forward to extending it whenever I find the time. First and foremost I would like it to help other people to organize their travels. I would have been very happy had I found this kind of information before my travels. In terms of adding to the intinerary I would also need help from other people and will be there to help myself whenever I can. At the same time, most people that look up MV Liemba have already enough information on why they would like to be part of the journey. There are plenty of pages/book/etc. on MV Liemba. What is missing is exactly what I try to provide in this article: current information on how to achieve to sail with her. Thanks! PS: Maybe changing it to itinerary is a good idea. How can I do this?User4353 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The standard template for an itinerary is this one: Wikivoyage:Itinerary_article_template. At Wikivoyage:Itinerary you can also find more info on the requirements. Of course there's additional content in other places, but our goal is always to include the info here as well. Otherwise, we would not be a proper travel guide. I'm not at all suggesting to leave out any practical info, only to make sure to include the other required information as well, like what there is to see. Shifting towards the itinerary and away from the ship as a focal point makes clear we're not promoting a specific company, but rather a travel experience which happens to be carried out by only one boat company. As only very few people have actually had this experience (which sounds great, I must say), it'll be harder for others to contribute, but I'll see if I can lend a hand here or there. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the "Literature" section before reading this page. I don't think we can expect most of the readers of this article to seek out German-language books. However, the books can be named and briefly and interestingly described as part of the background in the "Understand" section. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand this is the English section of wikivoyage, however, as long as it is not an overwhelming list I still think some (even foreign) books (especially if "spot on") can find their way into these pages. After all, this is a travel website and I know many travellers that enjoy a good read. In addition, I see wikivoyage as a project that is not restricted to language barriers. Again, all in moderation. But I do think that this page currently is far away from being chaotic, unorganized, and in need for a serious cut back. ;-) Thanks! User4353 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Understand section sounds good for a brief mention of the book. We do include reads about the destination or journey by the way, just not source material as such. Any thoughts on a better suited name? Would Across Lake Tanganyika work? JuliasTravels (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a brief mention. No need for complete listings with ISBN numbers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Great to see the page is still up! Brief mention works for me. I do not see why a useful information (such as the ISBN) should be omitted. While there certainly is no need to make it mandatory, it seems awkward to get rid of it. I do have a sympathy to provide it in a standardized way that takes up less space and is less intruding in the text. This could be done as part of a link (a very small ISBN - I#ll try that. let's see how you like that), a pop up, a mouseover, a symbol, etc. --- Julia, I do not see an urgent need to rename the page. Personally I find an "Across ..." to be a little too broad / bland. Also, people will be looking for the current name and may be confused otherwise. Again, this is not just any mean of transportation, so that we would/should need to abstract from its name, but this is a destination for people. Thanks for taking the time to help out! User4353 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The thing is that it still reads like an article about the boat, especially the intro. I do appreciate that it's not just any boat, but even special boats (like special hotels for example) normally don't get their own article. That's because such articles have a strong tendency to lean towards promotion (considering that it is in the end a commercial company that runs it), or an encyclopaedic article. I have no strong feelings about the name, and I like the topic, personally. It's just one of the things that will make the article a more valid travel topic according to policy, in order to prevent it from being nominated sooner or later for being "promotion" or something. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User4353, the reason I'm saying that complete listings for books go against the grain on Wikivoyage is that we don't use refs in this guide; therefore, your refs must be edited as I stated above, to purely the name of the author and title, with a minimum of explanation needed to explain them to interested readers of an itinerary or travel topic. See the external links page for more information about that:

We also do not provide links to source information or provide references—travel guides do not use footnotes! If a source looks like it could be of use to subsequent editors of a guide, mention it (or link to it) on the talk page – not in the article itself.

Also, don't be surprised that the article is still up. It won't be merged suddenly without further discussion, and I think that people here are content to give you latitude to continue editing the article before making any firm decisions about it until we see its eventual shape. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is actually (technically) possible to include ISBN codes for books here. Have a look at the source code in Japan#Further_reading. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, point taken, but at the very least, we don't want an article to look like a promotion for a book or two. It's a thin line, but we should try to give User4353 more latitude and see where s/he takes this article. I'll do my part in this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any risk that this article could be seen as promotion. While technically it is the only ship doing this route, it is not equipped to handle tourists. However, it can transport up to 600 people. Ususally there aren't any white (here: easy to spot tourists) people aboard. You are likely to be on your own. In these areas people only seldomly travel this expensive (boat trip is considered very expensive even in 3rd or 4th class) for leisure. This ship is the lifeline for many villages around the lake than cannot be reached by car. It is more a freight and business ship than anything touristy. For the encyclopedic worries, the article is almost entirely travel related stuff. So really, if this is seen as encyclopedic, any article could be!

For the books part. I only added the few sentences because it was asked for. Personally I think a small list should be fine. It is an easy task for everyone to find out about a book (at least in the way the description is done here). A list would also limit the advertising issue. User4353 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will give you the latitude, and I'm sorry to have cramped your style earlier. However, I am doubtful that a BBC documentary should be linked in the article - that's the kind of thing that's more commonly put on a talk page. See what others think, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries! I wasn't sure what to do with the BBC documentary. It is very short (<5 min), of high quality and reputation (BBC), is very up to date, and does add to easy information on the ship. If this is something that belongs on the Talk page...wait... is that _this_ page? I thought this was for discussing the content and not actually content? Sorry, if I am making beginners mistakes here. User4353 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is the talk page for the article, and yes, it's mostly used to discuss the article, but also sometimes to put relevant references. But leave the BBC documentary up on the article unless others object. It's not hurting anyone to have it there, and it might help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides, it's quite okay to list movies about destinations as "suggested info", and I'd say that goes for documentaries as well. We have star articles with long lists of both literature and films (e.g. Chicago). The only point is to list them as being suggested readings or films, and not as "sources" like in an encyclopaedic article. And you did, so it's fine for me. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess

The headline says it all. Unfortunately I am not at all knowledgeable about its subject and I am not able to fully grasp what this article is about (apparently a boat) from its garbled text... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest it be merged with Lake Tanganyika. However, that article is currently nominated for deletion. Pashley (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

After a closer look at how it might fit into the lake article, I've concluded that a merge is pretty much impractical. That makes the choices either deleting this article or trying to fix it. Deletion would be a shame since the boat is somewhat famous and a good deal of work has gone into the article.

I'm therefore now trying to improve the text a bit, but almost certainly will not do all it needs. Pashley (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

African Queen?

In the wonderful old movie w:The African Queen (film) there is a German gunboat which WP describes as:

Although fictional, the Königin Luise was inspired by the German World War I vessel Graf Goetzen (also known as Graf von Goetzen),[17] which operated on Lake Tanganyika until she was scuttled in 1916 during the Battle for Lake Tanganyika. The British refloated the Graf Goetzen in 1924 and placed her in service on Lake Tanganyika in 1927 as the passenger ferry MV Liemba, and she remains in active service there as of 2015.

The relation to the movie and the history of the boat should be mentioned in this article. Also, WP's account and that here disagree on some points; that should be resolved. Pashley (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

removed schedule

Itinerary of MV Liemba with prices of 2011

I just removed this since it is dated 2011. Pashley (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this page. However, I don't feel deleting presumably old information without providing new is helpful. While the prices may be old, the general schedule still seems to be up to date. Also the price rations are probably still valid. I would really like to see this information get back on the site, because it is very useful. An updated version would be better, but unless existent I think it is fine to clearly state from which year this information dates to make readers aware. User4353 (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

removed sleep on the shore

I removed the "sleep on the shore" section. It has virtually nothing to do with the MV Liemba. It is basically a single accomodation listing (a quite enthusiastic one, if I may say). Unfortunately, it has been added anonymously, so there is no way to contact the user. User4353 (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)