User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

MS Explorer

The Explorer and The Explorer II seem to be two different vessels. --Camptown (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

re: HMS Swan (1641)

The infobox was incorrectly making no mention of there being 102 guns on HMS Sovereign of the Seas at some point in her career, but my reference does state 100 after her rebuild (indeed the reference indicates that the 102 guns she possessed at her launch were reduced to 90 sometime after launch.

I looked over the Swan article as you suggested - I removed the comment about being a sister to Sovereign of the Seas, as she was clearly a much smaller ship than she, and the term 'sister ship' would usually indicate that they were ships built to the same draught (in which case Sovereign of the Seas had no sister, and nor did the majority of ships launched before the 1745 Establishment came into being, most likely). Martocticvs (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see that now - it reads to me as more of a colloquial term; certainly it is not correct in a technical sense at any rate. It might be interesting for the reader though for there to be a mention of the link between the ships regarding the guns... Martocticvs (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Riverdance (ship)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Riverdance (ship), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool shipwrecks

How weird! Further to your message about the possibility of creating a "shipwreck" sub section on the article, yesterday I was thinking exactly the same thing, and even saved the Blackpool Gazette from yesterday as it had quite a decent article about the various shipwrecks. The article is online and I will add the section this afternoon if you don't mind my doing what was your idea and then if anything needs changing perhaps you could edit it? Would that be ok with you?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The Gazette yesterday had a special 4 page cover with a double page picture of the scene! I will have a start on it shortly and let you know once I have it up.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I did say in the message above this one that I would let you know when I had finished adding the "shipwrecks" section to the Blackpool article, which I was in the process of completing. Therefore, in order to add the full content which I have been doing as a preview for the past hour or so, unfortunately I have had to overwrite the content you added while I was editing. Apologies.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi sorry for a further message, but with regard to the Holland XXIV I started to add that in, but then realised it wasn't wreecked off Blackpool, and so left that out as it was wrecked at Cleveleys; and if anything it should really be in the Cleveleys article?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't move it as I didn't want to just simply remove it without discussing it with you first as you had only just added it, and it seems to be a topic you know much more about than me! And of course, I had absolutely no idea whether you were local or not; you could have also been a "Sand grown 'un" for all I knew!! :) Sure we went to Yarmouth when I was young. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and no in the end I left it in the Blackpool article rather than moving to to Cleveleys (It was Cleveleys and not Fleetwood), mostly because the wreck seems to have been on the border between Blackpool (well Bispham and Norbreck) and Cleveleys. The Riverdance is now on it's side and certainly an odd sight! Over the weekend even though it is on it's side people were still trying to climb onto it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, maybe it could be done in the same way of other sections where there is a link below the header to the "main article". So in this instance it would mean the Blackpool Shipwrecks section being trimmed right down to the bare information with a link at the top to the "main article" Blackpool shipwrecks or whatever title is apporopriate. However, I am unsure as to whether or not other such articles exist, do you know of any? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are about creating a new article for shipwrecks at Blackpool? I know it was something you brought up recently. Do you think a title of Blackpool shipwrecks would be appropriate and if so then the section within the Blackpool article would presumably then need reducing to maybe just info about the MS Riverdance and perhaps brief mention of some of the other shipwrecks with a link to the main article? What do you think? My only concern would be if another user deems the article to be trivia and/or non-notable? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

M/S Riverdance

I'm in the middle of trying to restore the article. Please hang on while I get the history back. The article is currently at M/S Riverdance Gwernol 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article to MS Riverdance with its history intact. That seems to be the common way to title articles. In future, using cut-and-paste to restore articles is a bad idea since, as you have seen, it doesn't restore the article history. Thanks, Gwernol 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the edit note is really necessary. The move was a one-time occurrence that was easily enough fixed. Other editors are quite entitled to edit boldly and pretty much everything can be undone. I've left a message on User:AxG's talk page. I have no doubt that he was acting in good faith - in fact usually Wikipedia title's reflect the actual name of the subject of the article. So titling the article "M/S Riverdance" is actually completely reasonable. In this case, because other articles use "MS" instead of "M/S" its okay to keep it where it is now, but it really isn't anything to get upset about. Best, Gwernol 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If it starts up again, let me know. I've watchlisted the article, but since I have almost 30,000 articles on there I may not spot a change. Best, Gwernol 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg

Thanks for the heads-up. I also disagree with the section being deleted, but as I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I didn't want to step on anyones toes. Should I refer the issue to my peers? Spy007au (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the issue on the talk page has been resolved amicably. Let me know if you think there is anything else here that requires attention. Best, Gwernol 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliza Anderson (sidewheeler)

Thanks for support on this one. I was surprised at the stuff that could be written about this ship, there's actually much more. The underground railroad incident alone was a complete surprise to me. I'll have have a look at the naming conventions, to be honest I wasn't aware there were any. I used "Anderson" instead of "Eliza Anderson" because constant use of the full ship's name seemed to make the article harder to read, and the vessel was generally called the "Anderson" for short, even in the older sources.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Riverdance

I have left a note on the talk page of the MS_Riverdance article and hope you can do something with it.

James Brown 17:46, User talk:79.65.242.7‎ 9 March 2008 (GMT)

List of shipwrecks in 1908

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of shipwrecks in 1908, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of shipwrecks in 1908. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Asumpta

Thanks for info - the proper link for the problem pdf seems to be this: http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/annual%20report%201997.pdf but it is not very informative. Look forward to completed article! --mervyn (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of World War II ships - Empire Galahad

Hi. I would just like to let you know that I reverted your recent edit to List of World War II ships. The list is for fighting ships only and Empire Galahad was a cargo ship and ergo not qualified for the list. No hard feelings, I hope. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that list seems to include ALL ships launched that year, so that work out just fine. By the way, what exactly is the notability of this ship? Manxruler (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's good and fine then. Add those things to the article and that'll be great. Manxruler (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good edit. The article is much better now. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Armed merchant ships

No, they do not qualify to that list. Most merchant ships were armed anyway from a certain point during World War II. Anti-aircraft guns and in some cases anti-surface guns were very common amongst WWII merchantmen. However, merchant raiders and auxiliary cruisers qualify as they were simply merchantmen converted into warships. The reason we excluded merchant ships from the list is that if let them in then the list would potentially include thousands of ships. Also, merchant ships and warships probably should have separate lists anyway. Manxruler (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you were referring to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Vennachar

Hi Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion & I'll do that in future. How do I create my own sandbox? Cheers Spy007au (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clipper Point/Pace

My sources for at least the Clipper Point being registered in Limassol are that the Seatruck model of the vessel clearly shows the vessel being registered in Limassol, and photographs of the vessel I have seen show the vessel is registered in Limassol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightoller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Loch Line

Hi Mjroots, I have started a new article Loch Line, which I have also listed in the DYK nominations section. If you don't mind, can you proof read and address up any typos etc. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall do, although I fly out of OZ on Monday for a 5 week O/S holiday and will be off-line for that period. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Glitra

Hi Mj. I just stumbled across some fascinating information on the SS Glitra sinking. Check it out. Manxruler (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, the book is in Norwegian. I was reading about the 125 year history of Norwegian torpedo boats when I came across this mention. Go ahead, change the format if you like. I've always had a good relationship with the Harvard style myself, but do as you like. Manxruler (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks correct to me. Manxruler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Giant Hovercraft

I have nominated New Giant Hovercraft, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Giant Hovercraft. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

reference: List of shipwrecks 1907

hi, what do you mean, which one? I entered two for 1907 that were not on there.

SS Suevic: "Falling Star" Misadventures of White Star Line Ships by John Eaton & Charles Haas c.1990.

SS Dakota: see the entry and reference section on this vessell in particular the link to Connecticutt Historical page. Connecticut was where this ship was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Esther Jensen

You're right, and I've already changed it. I saw it was built in Denmark. And I distinctly remember thinking to myself that I thought the Danish flag looked different than that one... Thanks for the catch. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)