User talk:Gbambino/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cruise Liner

Regarding your comment in editing out the term "Cruise Liner" in the SS Canberra article. It is interesting that you should think cruise liner is an oxymoronic term, considering "cruise" and "liner" do not contradict each other. A liner is a ship that carries out scheduled voyages between A and B, either for the purposes of carrying cargo or passengers, or both. There is nothing to say a liner can not offer cruises along the way, if it is meeting its schedule. And how can there be no such thing, when "cruise liner" gets 975,000 hits in Google and many companies referring to their ships by that term?. A Cruise liner can be;

• A liner converted to a cruise ship
• A ship built to perform liner voyages and cruise, ie QE2 and QM2
• A passenger/ cargo liner that offers cruise holidays in addition to, or during the course of, its scheduled liner voyages- ie RMS St. Helena
• A loose marketing term for a cruise ship that supposedly offers the luxury and facilities of the liners of old

--Dashers 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a term coined by travel agents to pitch a sale can be taken too seriously. There has been for almost 50 years one distinct characteristic that defines what category a ship fits into: how it's built. Liners are constructed differently to cruise ships; narrower, stiffer, more curved hulls, with thicker steel and deeper drafts, and more powerful propulsion. An ocean liner can do cruise routes, and a cruise ship can line voyages, but that doesn't make the ocean liner a cruise ship, nor the cruise ship an ocean liner, or either a "cuise liner", otherwise every ship would be one. The Mauretania, Queen Elizabeth, Rotterdam IV, Normandie and many other liners undertook numerous cruises - have they ever been referred to as cruise liners?

Now, ships built purposefully for both crossing and cruising are a bit ambiguous, but their status as liners seems to take precedence amongst ship experts, as no matter whether she cruises or not, without the characteristics of a liner she cannot be one. Never have I heard of a ship historian (John Maxtone-Graham, Bill Miller, Lee Server, etc.) refer to anything called a "cruise liner", or refer to dual purpose ships like the QM2, QE2 and Rotterdam as anything other than ocean liners. In fact, I believe it was Maxtone-Graham who said "cruise liner" was oxymoronic - I guess I picked it up from him. --gbambino 03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start by saying that I have never used the term cruise liner myself, and passenger ships to me are either liners, cruise ships or ferries- but I would not go so far as to say never the twain shall meet. Having said that, I do not think that terms that have appeared in modern usage can be ignored or discarded, just because a bunch of maritime historians want to maintain the mystique of a bygone era. There are plenty of terms that come into common usage that as we get older and more set in our ways, we cringe at. Just because a phrase is a marketing term, it does not make it invalid- it is the level of usage that determines its validity. Past attempts to differentiate the larger, faster more luxurious vessels from the smaller slower ones by attempting to make the term Ocean Liner exclusive would have had as much to do with marketing as anything else.

I would argue that the characteristic that defines what category a ship fits into is its function, not its build- and a ship is built to take into account its function. The term liner has more to do with function- carrying out deep sea line voyages on set routes, to a regular schedule. They do not have to be powerful, as long as they meet the schedule they were designed for. Many cargo liners (a term that has been around much longer than Cruise Liner) would only have a top speed of 12 or 14 knots. Many of the ocean liners were built to perform their line voyages at high speed, for the benefit and comfort of their passengers and for prestige. Longer, narrower, stiffer hulls and more powerful propulsion enabled them to do this. However, many other passenger ships carrying out line voyages were not built to perform their function at high speed and did not have the long narrow hulls and powerful machinery of some of the transatlantic liners. Typically ships built by P&O and the British India Steam Navigation Company for servicing India and East Africa were more about comfort than speed, and the likes of the SS Uganda certainly did not have the long lines or powerful machinery of the likes of the RMS Queen Elizabeth. The Uganda was still a liner though.

When air travel first started to make inroads into markets formerly reserved for the shipping companies, many of the older (and, at the time, not so old) ships were deployed for cruising and most ceased performing line voyages altogether. When this happened, they ceased to be liners- they became cruise ships. When fuel prices started to climb in the 1970's, many had their machinery de-rated to be more fuel efficient- in effect, losing some of the specifications that, according to your argument, made them exclusively Ocean Liners. The desire to hang on to the term liner for these re-deployed ships would again have as much to do with marketing as technicalities. In this sense, the shipping companies trying to wring as much money out of an old ship would be trying to achieve the same goal as the maritime historians- preserving the mystique of that bygone era.

--Dashers 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg removed from your user page

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Image; Canberra-ship1.jpg

I have uploaded the photo Image:03-Ponta_Delgada_1984.jpg which I have released to the public domain, and used it to replace Image:Canberra-ship1.jpg, in line with Wikipedia's fair use policy which states; "Copyrighted material lacking a free licence such as GFDL may be used on the English-language Wikipedia under fair use if..." "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" --Dashers 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion

Thought you'd be interested in this, there is a discussion on the Canada article, to remove the word dominion from the intro. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SS France

You have reverted my deletion on the current location of Blue Lady. While I think the statement was current when first added to the article, the cited reference has changed and I could not see where it now supports the assertion as to the current location of the ship. Also, I don't think an enclyopedia article should state where it "now" is, but rather where it as as of a certain date. I haven't reverted it back but you may want to check the reference to see if supports the statement (and the cited source changes often), and also rephrase the statement so that it is not rapidly outdated, as would appear from a 6/28 article. [[1]]Kablammo 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't worded correctly, then I have no objection to it being edited. However, simply removing an entire sourced sentence seems inappropriate. I'll look at the link to see where the information came from. --gbambino 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As alluded to above, I think the statement was correct when made, but no longer is. That is why it was deleted. Kablammo 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited above states that the ship left Fujairah on June 14. So, yes, it seems the SS France (1961) article here is out of date. But, the sentence in question should be reworded to reflect the changes, not deleted. That's a good article you provided, though. I'll use it as a reference. --gbambino 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a date to your change, so that the article will be correct even if is not changed "in real time" with future developments. I like your additions to the France page, but I think the whole article could benefit by reorganization along a more chronological basis. That would require moving your design additions up towards the top, maybe with the remodeling for its life as Norway in a section devoted to its second career, and discussion of its post-retirement history at the end. Do you think that makes sense? Kablammo 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know what date she arrived at her current anchorage - thanks for adding that.

The article could be reorganized; I was simply trying to follow the format I set up for other ship articles, notably RMS Queen Mary 2 and RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. History is outlined first, followed by exterior design, interior design, technical specs, and so on. France/Norway just has such a storied carreer that her history section is much longer than all the others. --gbambino 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the formats for SS Normandie and RMS Aquitania--that's what I had in mind. There may not be only one "right" answer. If I want to reorganize the France page I'll let you know first. Kablammo 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gbambino-- thought you might be interested in these articles: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2006/june/theuae_june941.xml

and

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2006/july/theuae_july194.xml

The plot thickens . . . Kablammo 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a (historical Canadian) beer

I like a man who can change his mind. Reverting your own revert is a noble thing. I wouldn't normally have noticed but I went back into history to check something and I saw your note. SilkTork 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II image

Please stop reverting that page. It is not urgent which image appears on it. I've already warned your opposite number that if he reverts again I will block him, and I will you too, if you should revert. -Splash - tk 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's edit was my third (and obviously last) revert. I have opened a discussion about the issue on the associated talk page. --gbambino 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the User Monty Python userbox

Hello there...I have come up with a whole slew of new usages for the User Monty Python userbox. They are currently located in my sandbox. I would like your opinion before I put them up for general consumption, and if you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for creating Template:Commonwealth monarchism I was going to create it; but got sidetracked :) Brian | (Talk) 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norway/Blue Lady comments

A terrific tribute to this grand vessel.. I admire the time and work you put into it. Such a shame that she has reportedly now been beached at Alang. --OneCyclone 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filibuster Forums

As per your question, the guy behind Snafu Comics (who seems to be a new friend of J.J.) added a board on his forum for the discussion of Filibuster Cartoons and other political matters. It was just opened up a few days ago, so there really have only been three comics to talk about. You can read a little more about it on the homepage of Filibuster Cartoons, just immediately under the comic itself. RPH 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RMS

I wanted to ask you about your reversion to MS Queen Victoria. You said there's not evidence yet that it's no longer an RMS. By definition, she won't be. Queen Victoria is a cruise ship, not a liner. The designation of RMS is properly used by British ships that are transporting mail on contract. RMS isn't an automatic designation, but properly one that's only assigned to a ship when there's mail onboard. See Royal Mail Ship. I didn't want to revert your revert before talking to you, but RMS really isn't appropriate for the article. Akradecki 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry about that...foot in mouth, I misunderstood...you were talking about QE2 not QV. Sorry! Akradecki 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help in explaining that Queen Elizabeth is not 1/16th of a monarch

Hello gbambino, I've seen from various discussions that you have an interest in Queen Elizabeth II. I was wondering if you could help me explain to User:CaribDigita on their talk page that Queen Elizabeth II is not "1/16th the Queen of Barbados" and is technically a separate legal monarch (although "shared" in a sense). The matter came up because CaribDigita is of the opinion that Barbados has no royal anthem (God Save the Queen), which I believe is incorrect so long as Barbados has a queen (the monarch being the symbolic embodiment of the State).Thanks!72.27.87.249 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCC Article: Sources on "most prestigious"

Hi there;

I do not disagree with the notion that UCC is Canada's most prestigious independent school. But when I removed 5 of the 6 notes on this, I did so for good reason. Several of these articles do not mention at any point the prestigiousness of UCC. One CBC one, as you mentioned, does; however, it does not note that UCC is the "most prestigious" school, as the wiki article states. The Globe article that I left clearly labels UCC the most prestigious.

And gee whiz, it's not like this is totally important, although I understand your pride as an Old Boy! If you would like to leave the lanaguage "often touted", I am willing to cede that this is accurate. However, I would urge you to take an objective look at the 6 sources and to decide which ones really apply to the point being made. Perhaps you can find other sources supporting the claim, as they surely exist. The Globe article behind the insider edition password section is not an acceptable source. The CBC one that mentions "prestigious": maybe. Otherwise, I don't think so. But I won't engage in a back and forth with you. Rather, I'll let you do what you think is appropriate. If you keep them all, then I'll let it be!

Ich dien, Stephen

P.S.: Were you a man of Trinity at UToronto? 142.151.162.189 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) .. I don't have an account yet.

Truly, this isn't a matter of pride. I've sat out and merely watched the silly tit-for-tat edit war go on over whether UCC is "the most" or "one of the most," whether it's exclusive or prestigious, or what=have-you. All those six sources were dug out by others to affirm that the school is "often touted" as prestigious or exclusive, which seemed to settle the matter; it's been stable for quite some time now. So, that's why I'm a little objectionable to removing cites - I don't want to see the edit war start up again. --gbambino 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation. I'd ask if you would agree with removing source #3, because most people do not have access to that article. The rest, I cede, should stay with good reason. What do you think? 142.151.162.189 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any rule regarding member-only websites being used as sources, but my logic is that the cite links to a newspaper article, which, though it may not be accessable to everyone through the internet, can be found for free in a library. Perhaps I could just rewrite the source as pure text, as would be done for a reference to a book; i.e.: Cheney, Peter; Globe and Mail: UCC's watershed moment; September 11, 2004. --gbambino 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summary in Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg

In regard to this edition, Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing..

But if instead, you want to politely discuss the matter, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_of_Canadian_politicians. --Abu Badali 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling a tag "silly" is abusive? Really? --gbambino 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC

I'm sure you're acting in good faith but there is no double use of PC. Long before Canada existed Ireland had its own Privy Council and there were members of both the UK and the Irish PC. eg The Duke of Wellington. However members of both still used PC (once) not twice. By all means add to the Honours section that he is a member of both but he still gets only one PC either way Alci12 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Thank you. It leaves me wondering, though, how one differentiates between the two (or three) privy councils in someone's post-nominals. --gbambino 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titleholders templates

I asked Kingboyk this a few days ago, and have had no reply - I hope you don't mind my asking you... I've been working on some templates, and I've noticed that when one is placed under another, there is sometimes a gap, but sometimes not - could you take a look? An example is Charles, Prince of Wales - CPW joins to PW, whereas PW doesn't to DC... Could you possibly shed some light? Cheers - - DBD^R 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hello Gbambino, Thank you for the information about the Images,I am very New to Contributing and find the Copyrighting of Images difficult to understand and could do with some advice. Most of the images you have listed above are of Postcards or Images that I have collected Over the years. they have no copyright printed on them so I am not sure how I should Tag them with. Any advice would be very much appreciated.Stavros1 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. --gbambino 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:QM2FTL05.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:QM2FTL05.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealing your Map Idea

Hi there; I just wanted to let you know that I have stolen your pins-in-world-map idea for my user page. I am just getting a little deeper into Wikieverything and I am finding it very interesting. I know we rubbed harshly on a UCC issue, and I apologise; I concede that the thrust of my objections were wrapped in pro-AC anti-UCC sentiment, which really has no place here (or anywhere). We seem to have a bit in common, and I would hope that we can wikigetalong! Cheers. Shagmaestro 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uh oh!

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1432

Better dispatch the scribes to correct the PMO on this one, Gavin!--SFont 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiji - order of precedence (chiefs, etc.)

Hi there! Just my two cents' worth to clear up some confusion on the precedence of Fiji's President, Paramount Chief, and other chiefs.

There are hundreds of chiefs - each village has its own chief, sometimes more than one, as the various clans of a village may have individual chiefs also. But there is a definite hierarchy. Each Province chooses three representatives to sit on the Great Council of Chiefs - these 3 are usually very highly ranked chiefs, although on the odd occasion lower chiefs and even commoners have been chosen. The Great Council of Chiefs elects the country's President, Vice-President, and 14 of the 32 Senators.

Ratu Josefa Iloilo is the current President (or deposed President, depending on whether you go by de facto or de jure). He holds the hereditary title of Tui Vuda and as such is the traditional ruler of Viseisei and Vuda.

• The Tui Vuda recognizes the Roko Tui Dreketi (Paramount Chief of Burebasaga) as his overlord.

• The Roko Tui Dreketi recognizes the Tui Cakau (Paramount Chief of Tovata as her equal, and the Vunivalu of Bau (Paramount Chief of Kubuna) as her superior.

• All three chiefs (Roko Tui Dreketi, Tui Cakau, and Vunivalu of Bau) recognize Elizabeth II as their own Paramount Chief.

This order of precedence has nothing to do with political authority, but signifies seniority and is reflected in ceremonial protocol.

Perhaps the most influential chief in the 20th century was Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna. He held the title of Tui Lau - a title subordinate to the Tui Cakau and a number of others. He dominated the landscape like a colossus - but when it came to ceremonial matters, he deferred to the holders of more senior titles.

President Iloilo has a lower precedence than Queen Elizabeth in his capacity as Tui Vuda, not in his capacity as President. It is also as Tui Vuda that he is of lower rank than the Roko Tui Dreketi, the Tui Cakau, and the Vunivalu of Bau. On matters of state, they will defer to him, but when it comes to all traditional matters handled by the Great Council of Chiefs, he will certainly defer to them.

By custom (not law), the Presidency is rotated among the three chiefly hierarchies (Kubuna, Burebasaga, and Tovata). The first President, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, was the Tui Cakau, but his two successors have both been of lower rank.

I hope this helps. David Cannon 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)