Talk:East Indiaman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
East Indiaman lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Piracy To-do:
|
|
 |
East Indiaman is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Google
Why is this google's first choice when searching for "largest poop" ?
[edit] Class?
In the table of East Indiamen, what does "Class" mean? So far none of the entries have been assigned a class so should we keep it? Dabbler 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is LoneWolfJack from his vacation PC. Don't have my login handy right now. I intended "class" to specify the ship type like "schooner", "clipper", etc. However, I wouldn't know myself where to find that piece of information. My second thought was, "class" could be used to indicate whether the ship was a regular HEIC ship, a charter or a licensed one.
The vast majority if not all East Indiamen in British service were full rigged ships and they were almost all built either in Britain or India and chartered by the company while it had its monopoly. Later there may have been other types of ship sailing on their own trade, but they were not what is usually considered East Indiamen. Dabbler 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see that despite major differences in weight, there is no need to list the ship class. However, I do not share your opionion on the regular/chartered vessel issue. Splitting hairs, the list should only show regular vessels, but there are so many (major) HEIC ships that were not regulars, which would lead to a significant loss of information. I would opt for changing "class" to "type" and use the shortcuts REG (regular), CHA (chartered) and LIC (licensed). LoneWolfJack 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
East Indiamen → East Indiaman — WP:NC says article titles should generally be singular, and I can't see any reason for this one to be plural. FiggyBee 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
[edit] Survey - in support of the move
- Support as nom. FiggyBee 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom; is this controversial? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Probably not, but I always feel like I'm being presumptuous if I claim something as non-controversial. :) FiggyBee 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Recury 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
