Talk:Icebreakers of Russia

Original research

The lead is rife with original research claiming there is a debate over the origin of the icebreaker, but providing no citations to support that statement. Llammakey (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"Rife?" for a single sentence? Colleague, you need to calm down, probably take a wikibreak. --Altenmann >talk 22:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is a disagreement, in light of new data, because until 5 years ago nobody knew how this freaking Pilot looked like, and all was hearsay. And people continue copy-pasting outdated information all over the internets. --Altenmann >talk 22:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That is the definition of WP:OR. Furthermore "rife" is completely true. There is no uniform world classification of icebreakers. Even the definitions of what is icebreaker vary. Ice-breaking capability is not a defining characteristic. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Llammakey (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is supplied by the freaking footnote you didnt bother to read. May be I misinterpreted it (WP:COMPETENCE, no arguing here), feel free to fix the text. but no way I am taking things out of my head. --Altenmann >talk 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The footnote gives the definition of an icebreaker. In addition to purpose-built icebreakers, many research ships, offshore vessels, and even one luxury cruise ship have been officially classified as icebreakers. However, their ability to operate independently in difficult ice conditions is merely a means to carry out other tasks.

Although smaller ice-strengthened tugboats are often used for icebreaking operations in harbours, they are not considered as icebreakers. Oil tankers, LNG carriers, and other cargo ships are also excluded even if they are fully capable of independent year-round operation in the most challenging Arctic ice conditions. -

That quote can be summed up as "there is an official classification for icebreakers, but other ships, such as ... can operate in ice conditions and can break if required, such as in harbours or Arctic conditions. The article only deals with the former." Llammakey (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Contested piece removed. --Altenmann >talk 22:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going to write a brief "History section", but humbled by experts, I am taking this page off my watchlist. --Altenmann >talk 23:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a minor factual error in the claim that Yermak may have been the first icebreaker in the world. While it was certainly bigger than anything that had come before it and the first icebreaker designed for Arctic conditions, Yermak was preceded by e.g. Murtaja and Sampo in what was at the time the Grand Duchy of Finland as well as a number of smaller icebreakers in e.g. Denmark and Germany. Tupsumato (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I will not sweat over this and replaced "world" with "Russian". As I have read around, in 19th century there was plenty a ship used for ice breaking way before Pilot: after all, all northern harbors have plenty of ice, so no wonder. Google ngram attests the use of the word to as early as 1800. (But I didnt check, maybe it was a synonym to "ice pick" :-) And the design of modified 'Pilot' was quickly picked up everywhere after Germans bought the design. So Pilot was still the first, if one wants a pissing contest. I continue to insist that there is no clean-cut definition of an icebreaker no matter what our wikiexperts say. Formal definitions for modern vessels do not count. But as I said, I will not be involved in editing on the subject. --Altenmann >talk 05:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)