Talk:Cutty Sark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Cutty Sark is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
The first paragraph refers to the Cutty Sark as "it" ("It is preserved in..."); following paragraphs refer to the Cutty Sark as "she". Why is this not consistent? Is a clipper neuter while a ship is female?
- Sloppiness - should be "she" throughout. Some people probably think it's sexist and try to avoid it. (Note that Russian ships are traditionally "he" though.) Stan 15:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article name
Great article. However, I want to move it from Cutty Sark to Cutty Sark (ship) to make room for a much-needed article on the phrase from which the ship took its name. That has historical precedence, and so should be the root article. I hope everyone is cool with this. --Doric Loon 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The precedence rule is "most common", not "first use", so you'd want to think about whether "Cutty Sark" most likely connotes ship, garment, or drink to a randomly-chosen English speaker. The garment is ultra-obscure, probably not one person in 10,000 knows the etymology of the ship's name. Another test is to look at the "what links here" - if you move an article, you should make all the links point to the correct place. Also note that the garment article should be lowercased, since it's not a proper name, so one way to finesse is to use "Cutty Sark" for the ship and "cutty sark" for the garment. Stan 17:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I was about to vaguely agree with Stan Shebs, then I noticed that Doric Loon had already moved it. But that evcn several hours after that move, many links that were clearly intended for the ship were still pointing to Cutty Sark and hence now to the wrong article. And that is simply not acceptable. So I've moved the new Cutty Sark article to Cutty Sark (garment), and attempted to move Cutty Sark (ship) back to Cutty Sark to fix those incorrect links. Unfortunately I cannot make that move, so I've requested an administrator to do so. -- Chris j wood 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Cutty Sark (ship) → Cutty Sark. User:Doric_Loon moved it the other way, against an objection on talk page and without properly disambiguating existing links to the article. See discussion above. -- Chris j wood 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - obviously -- Chris j wood 18:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)(you proposed if you vote as well, your vote will be double counted Philip Baird Shearer)- Support - common usage, someone should create Cutty Sark (disambiguation) with a list and a mention like "For other usages see Cutty Sark (disambiguation)" at the top of the Cutty Sark article Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given below. Please remember that most people who find their way to this discussion will be fans of tall ships, but theirs is a minority interest. --Doric Loon 20:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)Support - I withdraw my opposition - see below. --Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005- Support primary topic disambiguation. James F. (talk) 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- One thing I want to insist: I did NOT do anything against an objection on talk page. When I moved this article there was virtually nothing on talk page. Since there are now other people turning up here, that's obviously a different situation. Also: I DID change most of the links. I was called away before I could finish, and have just returned with the intention of doing so. But I won't do anything more without consensus.
- Now as far as what takes priority is concerned: GARMENT obviously doesn't. The phrase Cutty Sark was used that way once in a poem 200 year ago and never again. So I doubt if "Cutty Sark (Garment)" is helpful to anyone. But I think the quote from the poem as taken over proverbially into every-day English does take the prize, both for being the logical starting point and for being the principle usage: that's how most people today know the word. Someone does something well and others shout "Well done cutty sark". You are much more likely to meet that in every day life than the name of a 19th centuy boat - unless you happen to live in Greenwich or are particularly into nautical things.
- So obviously I'm for having things the way I tried to make them this afternoon. But if someone else has a really sensible suggestion, I'd like to hear it. --Doric Loon 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A question, BTW. Stan's suggestion of having two articles distinguished by capitalisation (Cutty Sark on the ship and Cutty sark or even Burns' original Cutty-sark on the colloquial usage) is very neat. But is that not confusing for users? It's the kind of thing I would have expected a Wiki policy against. If it IS thought good style then it would be a compromise which would make everyone here happy. (And there would be no need for a disambiguation page because the article on colloquial usage can point to subsequent developments!) --Doric Loon 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, one of the oft-cited reasons for captialisation is that we can have to articles whose titles differ solely in capitalisation. James F. (talk) 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then there is our solution. I will move CS(Garment) to Cutty-sark and you can put the ship article back where it originally was. That resolves the problem, I think, to everyone's satisfaction! --Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005
On possible confusion between upper and lower case versions, yes, that should always be considered when choosing titles. For instance, if I had a concept with two synonyms almost equally common, but one of them was case-ambiguous with some other title, I would choose the other synonym, with lots of disambiguation cross-links at the top of all the articles involved. One also wants plenty of redirs for minor variations (with/without hyphen, etc), so as to channel people in the directions they want to go. Stan 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What is a "yd" of sail?
Are the measurements given for the sails in "yd" actually the area of each sail in square yards? If so, all the conversion to meters are wrong, and even if colloquial usage shortens it to "yards" it should be quoted here as "yd²". To me, it seems that is likely what these are, but I'm not certain enough to fix it yet, but if they are length units and not area units, which dimension is being measured? Gene Nygaard 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, the page here states she had "over 32,000 square feet" of sail. The figures in the article are probably not areas in square yards, therefore, as they don't add up to more than a tenth of this. Shame there's no source for the data, really.... --Casper Gutman 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] and she is the only classic clipper still surviving
I've deleted "and she is the only classic clipper still surviving" from the opening paragraph. Surely this statement can't be true. There are plenty of square-rigged ships still around. Some are still sailing, some are not (for example, The Peking. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- She is one of very, very few, and certainly the only in half decent condition. City of Adelaide is another I know of, possibly the only other surviving. And she is in VERY poor condition (or was last I heard). The Peking on the other hand is a very different animal all together. Thats like comparing a Ferrari to truck. --LiamE 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
