Talk:Bulk carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulk carrier article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-Class) 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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Maritime Trades (Rated GA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Maritime Trades, a group of editors working to improve Merchant Shipping topics. To learn more or join the project, please visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Echo     (French) WikiProject Echo has identified Bulk carrier as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

	Bulk carrier has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

Contents 1 Supramax 2 Prices 3 Combination carrier photo 4 Vernacular 5 Causes of structural failure 6 GA Sweeps

[edit] Supramax

The old handymax is now called a supramax and should be updated by the articles author. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.44.230 (talk) 22:15, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, perhaps the size classification could do with being updated. 80 - 90,000 dwt shoud be 'Kamsarmax', 90 - 100,000 dwt 'post-panamax', and 100 - 130,000 'baby cape'. These terms used in chartering circles at least. Brylaw (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prices

The prices for panamaxes and capesizes have now more than doubled since 2004 wich is cited in the article. I propose pricing a new capesize at 160 millions and a new panamax at 90 millions. Supramaxes in the 70s and handysizes 50s and below regarding various sizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.44.114 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change prices, that's fine. But doing so without changing the citations causes a serious problem. The current prices, as stated in the footnotes, are from UNCTAD in 2006, pages 41 and 42. Haus^Talk 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combination carrier photo

Hello there just a small point slightly off topic. The photo used for the combination carrier actually shows a pure bulk carrier, a combi carrier will have tanker like arms for loading/discharging wet cargoes Brylaw (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, shipmate. I updated the photo accordingly. Haus^Talk 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernacular

in the types section (and presumably throughout the article), the phrase bulk carriers is shortened to "bulkers". I'm loath to edit something where there is obviously a known dialect (see "boomers" versus SSN's), but wouldn't "bulk carriers" be more appropriate throughout the article? Protonk (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize now that the terms are equated in the first sentence. But is there some reference that shows which term is preferable? Protonk (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I went through a minute ago and counted 34 instances of "bulk carrier" and 84 of "bulker" in the article. I think from a style standpoint, this is preferable to 118 instances of "bulk carrier," but am open to debate. I can't imagine a book that would say "the term bulk carrier is preferable to bulker." On the other hand, Lloyd List, Det Norske Veritas, and Clarkson's all see fit to mix the two terms, and they seem to be in the same ballpark on google. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of structural failure

Apart from the causes already listed, Brittle fracture once was (and in rare cases, still is) a prime cause for failures of large ships in cold waters, bulk carriers included. Here is one (kinda academic) analysis of brittle fracture in bulk carriers:

TRIS

Here, cached, is a web page version of a print run-down of brittle fracture on the Lake Carling:

Google cache

here is canada's NTSB report for the Lake Carling:

Canada NTSB

Sort of a generalist rundown of ship losses due possibly to brittle fracture, cached"

more google cache

Historically, of course, that was why the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. I think the relative number of bulk carriers (and ships as a whole) sunk due to brittle fracture has probably dropped considerably with good computer modeling and process control for selecting steel, but there might be room for it in the article. Also, some of the failures due strictly to brittle fracture (and not cyclic stress, etc) are probably causes specifically by the shocks and stresses from waves as is already mentioned in the article. So I'll leave inclusion or exclusion to the experts. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article is generally very good, although the prose could use a brush up and the "See also" section seems to be an arbitrary list of shipwrecks. Bulk Carrier shipwrecks might do better to be listed properly on a seperate page rather than partially here. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)