Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)

source

City of Adelaide (1864) A link to a major source of information has been created by the Adelaide, Australia based Action Group set up to save the City of Adelaide. 124.178.209.107 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent News on City of Adelaide - December 15, 2009

Final pleas as deadline looms on the City of Adelaide's fate
deadline-looms-on-migrant-ships-fate
Gavin Lower,From: The Australian, December 15, 2009 12:00AM

This is obviously of interest. I have been meaning to update the City of Adelaide's article, but other mattters have kept me away. Use this reference as you see fit.
Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is way too long, It should be consolidated as much as possible. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain what to do about this issue. The Infobox follows the advice given in the Template:Infobox ship career description and is similar to the method used for the examples of the USS Bang and USS Wisconsin. The City of Adelaide has an exceptionally long, perhaps near unprecedented, career that covers 146 years - fourth oldest merchant ship in the world, much older than the two example WWII military ships. I made a conscious decision to repeat the 'ship name' inside the box each time due to the four different names (CoA-HMS-Car-CoA) but that might be the sort of thing that could be consolidated to shorten the box when the name has not changed. This is certainly a good test for the standard Infobox template! Any ideas? --Cruickshanks (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on a new infobox and post it here for discussion. I'm used to dealing with ship that have several changes of name, owner, flag etc. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Clipper Ship, 'City of Adelaide', 1000 tons, David Bruce, Commander. Hand-coloured lithograph by Thomas Dutton, August 1864. Dedicated "To Messrs. Devitt and Moore Owners, Messrs Wm Pile, Hay & Co. Builders & the Officers of the Ship this print is most respectfully dedicated by their obedient servant, Wm. Foster�?.
History
Name	City of Adelaide (1864-1922) HMS Carrick (1922-48) Carrick (1948-2001) City of Adelaide (since 2001)
Owner	Bruce, Moore, Harrold Bros. & Martin (1864-87) C H Mowll (1887-89) T S Dixon & Son (1889-93) Southampton Corporation (1893-1922) Royal Navy (1922-48) RNVR Club, Glasgow (1948-89) Clyde Ship Trust (1990-92) Scottish Maritime Museum (since 1992)
Operator	Devitt and Moore (1864-87) As per owners since 1887
Port of registry	London (1864-89) Southampton* (1889-1922) Royal Navy (1922-48) Glasgow* (1948-1992) Irvine* (since 1992) * = homeport
Route	London - Plymouth - Adelaide - Port Augusta - London (typical 1867-83)
Builder	William Pile, Hay & Co
Launched	7 May 1864
Commissioned	1923
Decommissioned	1948
Maiden voyage	6 August 1864
Out of service	1889-1922 Since 1948
Stricken	Removed from register 7th February 1895
Identification	Code Letters WCLQ United Kingdom Official Number 50036
Nickname(s)	The City
Status	Archaelogical deconstruction or removal to Sunderland, UK, or Adelaide, South Australia, under consideration
Badge	on stern
General characteristics
Class and type	Composite Clipper Passenger/migrant ship (1864-87) Collier (1887-89) Cargo ship (1889-93) Hospital ship (1893-1922) Training ship (1922-48) Clubroom and restaurant (1948-91) Museum ship (since 1991)
Displacement	791 tons
Tons burthen	1,500 Tons
Length	244 feet 1 inch (74.40 m)
Beam	32 feet 2 inches (9.80 m)
Sail plan	Full rigged ship (1864-81) Barque (1881-93) Derigged since 1893

OK, try this for an infobox, much more compact methinks. Mjroots (talk)

Comments here will have to be indent / outdent due to infobox. I've no objection to the Union Flags being changed, but if one is changed, the so must the other - i.e. Southampton and Glasgow. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots. That looks great. I will incorporate into the main page fixing up a few typos. Scottish devolution has played a role in the fate of the ship and so will use the country flags as they convey greater meaning (I am not Scottish btw). --Cruickshanks (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Heading Lines Running Over InfoBox

Anyone have ideas on why the Heading lines are running over the InfoBox in the article? The USS New Jersey (BB-62) has a Ship Characteristics Infobox that runs over multiple Headings without the clash. Perhaps there is a problem with the Ship Careers Infobox Template??--Cruickshanks (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Same problem occurs in USS Yorktown (CV-10) article but for the Ship Characteristics Infobox - and so 'Career' and 'Characteristics' Inoboxes both have the problem - but not always??--Cruickshanks (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it a browser problem? I'm using Firefox and it's ok here. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be browser related. The Heading lines run over in some, but not all, articles using these Infoboxes when viewed using IE8. I have tested this using Firefox too now, and yes, the page renders correctly without the lines overlapping. For better or worse, IE8, is most common browser used today and so I suspect most visitors are seeing this problem when looking at WikiProject Ships pages. --Cruickshanks (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I discovered the same browser problem occurring on another non-Wikiships pages too - eg. the Beau Geste image onFrench_Foreign_Legion#References_in_popular_culture. However, since I added images to this article the rendering problem with IE8 has gone away. Thuse there seems to be some sort of anomaly occuring between the code for the two types of boxes that creates or stops error depending on the sequence that the boxes render onto the page.--Cruickshanks (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Port of Registry post 1889

Hi Mjroots, I note your recent change reflecting Belfast. I agree that Belfast (or Dublin) seems very likely for the homeport from 1889-93 and so was appropriate. However, I have Lloyds Register for 1888-89 showing the City of Adelaide was still registered in London. Do you have LLoyd's Register records post 1889 to be certain that the Port of Registry changed away from London? I have doubts it changed, but don't know for sure. Regards,--Cruickshanks (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, If my change was incorrect, feel free to correct it. Was just going by what was said on SMM website, but LR would trump that in any case. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Images moved

Hi Mjroots, recalling that you are using Firefox, I suggest that you open the article in IE8 for a review. Your recent move of the HRH and Sir Julian Oswald images looks terrible when viewed in IE8. (Firefox not so bad with a relatively small amount of white-space.) As IE8 is the predominant browser used, I suggest that your change should be reverted.

I had previously placed the text in the 'Duke of Edinburgh Conference' subsection inside of a table because there is a rendering problem (at least in IE8) with the Unordered List bullets not being properly indented when adjacent to the portraits. Using the table makes them render correctly in both IE8 and Firefox. It also meant that, because of the constrained wrapping, some whitespace was created on the right beneath the photograph of the delegates. To me, that whitespace did not seem unnattractive. If it is that whitespace that you are tying to remove, then a better solution to moving the two images might be to place the four <ul> buletted paragraphs in this subsection inside of four separate tables. The text would wrap more that way and it is easy to implement. (Obviously this is a hack to overcome some underlying CSS shortfalls within Wikipedia globally.)

In hindsight, I should have put some <!-- comments --> inside the article relating to this.

I was also trying to follow the manual of style where people portraits are recommended to look towards the text rather than away from it. From this respect, the two portraits would look better on the left. Notwithstanding that the painted portrait of Capt. Bruce at the top needs to be on right, to look towards the text, in my view there was previously some nice harmony on the page in that all of the photographs of individuals were on the left of the page. It also meant that all of the 110px and 220px images were vertically aligned. I thought that systematic approach added some elegance to the presentation.

What do you think about reverting? Yours aye --Cruickshanks (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented this change to make article render correctly in IE8 and Firefox. The wrapping fix was simpler that stated above as it was easier to just move the right-hand image inside of the invisible table.--Cruickshanks (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender Neutral Article

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history § Pronouns

Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its").

Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively.

As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.

Please note that this article has been written with neutral-gender language. Please do not change the style to partly use female pronouns as that would make it internally inconsistent.

If there is a compelling reason to change this entire article to female pronouns, please make the case on this Talk page first.Cruickshanks (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"this article has been written with neutral-gender language. "

It hasn't been. You just went through it [1] [2] and removed the "she"s, before even raising this discussion. You seem to think that Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language over-rides long precedent for ships being considered female. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, your assertion is not correct. You have overlooked that I have been working on this article for three years and largely brought it up to its present standard. During that time this article has been written as neutral-gender. It was a recent anonymous edit by Special:Contributions/203.97.255.42 that made a partial change to female gender "shes", that I reverted, and then spotted a half-dozen "hers" that I had overlooked and also reverted. Please note that Special:Contributions/203.97.255.42 did make many pertinent changes to the article that included grammatical changes and different opinions on style. It was therefore not appropriate to fully undo their contribution; only those edits that partially changed the gender of the article and made it internally inconsistent. Cruickshanks (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I will respect your request not to change "it" to "she" when referring to a ship - but I have to protest that this is not an issue of being gender-neutral. This is exactly the same as languages where every word has a gender - for instance "la porte" for "the door" in French. This whole article really grates with its use of "it" for "she", especially in the context of authoritative sources on sailing ships and the age of sail, who exclusively use "she". To me, it has the sense of reducing the authority of the article, which is unfortunate, given the amount of material in it.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cruickshanks:I thought I should add some statistics on the usage of "she/her" versus "it/its" when referring to ships. I looked at all the entries under Category:Tea clippers. You will see that this category consists of 29 articles. The usage is as follows:

exclusively "she"	mostly "she"	no usage	"it"	both	total
25	2	1	0	1	29
86%	7%	3%	0%	3%	100%

You can check these figures quite easily for yourself. It just takes a bit of time (unless your speed-reading is very good).

I note, in particular, that there is no example of exclusive use of "it" to refer to a ship in any of these articles. Only 10% of the articles have "it" used somewhere within them. 96% of articles use "she/her", 93% predominantly use "she/her", 85% exclusively use "she/her". That would appear to make the use of "it" in this article anomalous, certainly in the context of articles on very similar subjects (i.e. other clippers). Therefore there is a strong case to bring this article in line to match the style found elsewhere in Wikipedia.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the official website for the ship[3] uses "she/her" - surely another reason for this page to be consistent with other sources/persons interested in this and similar subjects.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not look to other articles to decide what usage is appropriate here. Where one usage has been adopted, it should not be changed absent a substantial reason for doing so, and that is not an exception that swallows the rule.

There is a third option: eliminate the use of pronouns entirely. It is not that difficult. Kablammo (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two main points here. I feel that the rule of sticking with the first pronoun choice made, presumably, by the person who creates an article, to be a strange interpretation of the principles by which Wikipedia works. To explain: here we have one editor (the article creator) with more power on deciding content than any consensus among other editors. I appreciate that there is a need to avoid edit wars - but I do not think that measures to resist bad behaviour by Wikipedians should damage the content of the encyclopedia. Clearly, gratuitous change of pronoun use should be avoided, but when there is an argument to make a change, it should be considered.

I find "we do not look to other articles..." a rather strange statement. This "stand alone" view of an article is not a realistic fit with the editing principles - if you follow a link within the overall subject, will you suddenly be reading material using a different style guide? I appreciate that no-one wants to offend the sensibilities of an editor who may have done a lot of work on a subject, but I an not sure what this "isolationist" view of style seeks to achieve beyond that. I think there is a compelling case for it reducing the readability of Wikipedia. I am sure there are bigger problems than this one, but that does not remove the fact that the inconsistency with both (a) similar articles and (b) other sources (books, websites, historical material such as newspapers) detracts from the articles concerned.

I take it that your final suggestion is not a serious one, as this seriously reduces the readability of an article (I have read some whilst gathering statistics to make my points on this subject).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Manual of Style, like other disagreements over policy, says to both sides "you're both right", and allows the person who started the article to set the style. If you want to change it this discussion should be elsewhere.

If we are going to look elsewhere for guidance on the use of gender for ships, why not Lloyd's Register?

I was serious in my final suggestion. It is possible to write a readable article while avoiding pronouns. Try it; you may find it easier than you think. Kablammo (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, stepping back, for the moment, from whether the rules need reviewing, we have two linked points in this discussion that need addressing.
(1) User:Cruickshanks (a - or perhaps the - major contributor to this article) has stated (above) "If there is a compelling reason to change this entire article to female pronouns, please make the case on this Talk page first."
(2) the Manual of Style says "...articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."
In short, does the choice of pronoun usage by the vast majority of other:
(a) Wikipedia articles on closely related subjects,
(b) non-Wikipedia sources on (i) City of Adelaide and (ii) closely related subjects,
constitute a "compelling" or "substantial" reason to make a change?

On the suggestion about Lloyd's Register - "she" is used in all the early editions that include the City of Adelaide - it appears at about word 27 in the 1865 edition and this certainly continues through to 1874. The series I am using is incomplete thereafter but "she" is used again in 1883 and a quick look finds "her" in the 1899 edition. These dates cover the entire merchant service of this ship. This is a good example of how this article is at variance with other sources. Whilst some would take the view that language changes and that change is good, the massively increased availability of historical material means that we need to consider retaining older usages so that these resources are easily understood. This certainly seems to be the view of modern authors - the blurb (I do not have the book to hand) on Eric Kentley's book on the Cutty Sark (published 2014) uses "she/her" as does the "maritime trivia" book in front of me, published in 2010. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have checked this first, but this article was started with the pronoun usage "she/her" on 21 Jan 2006. Therefore slavish adherence to the rules would compel restoration of this initial style choice. The major edit that changed "she" to "it" was [4]

The previous version extensively uses "she/her": [5] This change is not mentioned in the edit summary.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See Style Proposal, below.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade to Feature Article Candidate

Anyone keen to assist me in making an effort to get this article to FA class, with a view to being Feature Article on the day the ship arrives at Port Adelaide early next year? It really is a fascinating story, extremely well sourced already and with many more available, and also many fair use or freely licensed pictures. I'll be able to devote some time to it in a few weeks.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic idea. I was reading the article a couple of days ago and thought it needed some serious work - lots of piecemeal additions and repetition. I have moved some of the text into a sandbox: User:Jonathan Oldenbuck/Carrick. Its still a bit scrappy but feel free to comment/get stuck in. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now partially rewritten the second half of the article in the sandbox, from 1999 when the SMM stopped work, through to the ongoing transportation effort. I've attempted to improve formatting and referencing. If there's no objection over the weekend I'll paste it back into the article next week. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I saw notice of the upgrade to FA on the WikiProject Australian maritime history. while I have not got any spare time in the next couple of months & therefore cannot help, I would like to make some suggestions. Firstly, the Lead Section needs a tidy up to match WP requirements (WP:LEAD); I personally feel that the lead is too long, does read more like a promotional item than an encyclopedia entry and does not adequately summarise the article content. Secondly, some of the LEAD content could go in a new section discussing the ship's significance in the same style as a heritage assessment for, say, a building. Thirdly, I feel the article is dominated by the Rescue Project, particularly as the three of the six major headings concern the Rescue Project - can the three headings be merged together under one heading? Personally, I think the best long-term strategy would be to split the article in two - one for the rescue project which is notable in its own right and in principle, will be complete when the ship's hulk arrives in Adelaide, and one for the ship (including a summary of the project in WP:Summary style).Cowdy001 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cowdy, useful suggestions. I have cut down the rescue section a lot, but it may be worth considering a separate article as you suggest. I also agree with a "significance" section as you suggested, and have moved the list from the lead under such a heading. Still needs to be de-listified. I would further suggest that the "Ownership" section be merged into the "Service history"? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Oldenbuck, the upgrade to date looks really good. Thank you. The only comment that I have at the moment is that the "significance" section needs some more citations; I also agreed with the need to 'de-list'.Cowdy001 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspected Inaccuracy

There is an inaccuracy on this page which niggles me, because I am unable to find a source - the article states that there are only two clippers left from the age of clippers, but there is one more surviving clipper STILL SAILING in the USA (it just gives joyrides around the home port these days). I remember finding pages about it a couple of years ago, my memory says it is an iron hulled vessel dating from 1865, but I can find nothing about it currently. Dotfret (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dotfret, I suspect that you are thinking of the iron hulled 1863 Star of India which still (I believe) gives joy rides in San Diego. Star of India is not a clipper but is instead a windjammer. The windjammer page explains the difference and even mentions the often made error in thinking they are the same type of ship. (This template might help you if you want to search further: Template:Surviving_ocean_going_ships.) I therefore don't think that this page is inaccurate. Yours, Cruickshanks (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be the ship I was thinking of. It was re-rigged like a barque in 1901, and still retains that rig. Not an uncommon ocurrence, the same thing happened to the Ambassador, which was said to be much easier to handle as a result, and the City of Adelaide. In its original state, as the Euterpe, the Star of India looks like a clipper to me.

One could argue that, as an experimental vessel, the Euterpe could not be described as a clipper, but the same argument would apply to the City of Adelaide, which was also technically experimental, built pre 1867 - and also destined to carry passengers to Australia and New Zealand.

This matter requires someone more knowledgeable than either of us to pass an opinion. "Windjammer" is a catch-all term. Any iron clipper was a windjammer. Not all windjammers were clippers. Dotfret (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The City of Adelaide is of composite construction, with a wrought iron frame with timber planking, not an iron hull. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that City of Adelaide is a composite hull vessel is not relevant, Bahudhara. A clipper could have a hull of wood,iron, or composite construction. The article on clippers defines a clipper as having three or more square-rigged masts, but many were converted to barque rigs with fore and aft sails on the mizzen mast. Star of India is currently rigged in this way. City of Adelaide was rigged in this way before it was dismasted. Ships of iron or composite construction, built before 1867, were entered on Lloyds register as experimental, so neither ship would be described as a clipper when first registered. RTFM before commenting, please. Dotfret (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no claim to expertise in these matters, and have no knowledge of Lloyd's classifications. Just comparing the scant data in the WP articles, it seems that it was not just the rigging and sail plan that were the distinguishing features of clippers - the City of Adelaide′s hull was both longer and narrower than Euterpe′s, and she was built for carrying passengers and for speed. She was one of the fastest ships on the London-Adelaide run; according to Lubbock, her record of only 65 days was beaten only by Torrens. Euterpe, on the other hand, was built for carrying a bulk commodity, jute from India, and not high value commodities such as tea or opium. Although later under ownership by Shaw, Savill and Company she did carry passengers on the New Zealand run, according to Lubbock her fastest voyage was 100 days, compared to Crusader′s record of 65 days, so she was hardly a fast ship.(Lubbock, B. (1921) The Colonial Clippers 34 MB download, see pp 346-365; there is a brief mention of Euterpe on p 351)

On the other hand, the fact that Lubbock mentions Euterpe does suggest the the dividing line between clippers and windjammers was not strictly defined in his day. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bahudhara, you are heading down the wrong path thinking that sail plans, construction, and Lloyds Classification are the defining features of clippers versus windjammers. It is fair to say that the distinction is, as you suspect, not black and white. It is akin to trying to differentiate if a person belongs to the Baby-boomers generation or Generation-X or Y. While arbitrary distinctions might be used by various journalists/authors, there is not a common socio-political definition used by all, and a person born in one person's definition of a Babyboomer might associate themselves more closely to Gen-X. Likewise, these things are generally judged in hindsight where people look backwards and notice different characteristics of different generations that can be used to set them apart, and then try to set up a classification of those generation differences.

Clippers were distinguished by sleek greyhound hull forms which gave them exceptional speed characteristics. The hull material was not of primary relevance, but would affect speed due to overall ship's weight and composite ships could use copper-sheathing to keep down marine growth that steel ships could not use due to different metals being in contact ... but the hull material in this example just relates to speed and not the vessel classification of clipper/windjammer. Windjammers were generally the generation of sailing ships that succeeded clippers. They were high volume hull forms where sleekness and speed were sacrificed in order to be able to carry bulk cargoes. See also Block coefficient (C_b)

Hence, windjammers pursued lower value bulk cargoes where getting it to market quickly was not an imperative. Whereas steamships were able to kill of clipper ships due to steamships' speed regardless of winds, windjammers were able to survive through to the 1940s and 1950s with cargoes on routes where steam was not competitive. Windjammers were steel/iron because they were of that generation when those materials were replacing timber, but clippers were also made of steel/iron. The steel/iron meant that the generation of windjammers could be built much larger than the earlier generation of wooden or composite clippers, and hence carry much more cargo. Like Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens, to use another analogy, they both co-existed but one breed outlasted the other.

Compare City of Adelaide (1864 clipper = late Neanderthal) to Euterpe/Star of India (1863 windjammer = early Homo-Sapiens). The beams of the vessels were about the same, and the length of Euterpe/Star of India was about 15% longer. Prima facie it might be thought that Euterpe/Star of India was sleeker, but her gross tonnage was more than 150% that of City of Adelaide. Therein is an indication that Euterpe/Star of India was a much fuller hullform than City of Adelaide and this would account for a vessel being much slower.

City of Adelaide was classed by Lloyds as 'Experimental' because they had not established rules for classifying (and insuring) composite ships. The same would be the case if she was a paddlesteamer made of composite construction. It has no bearing on the definition of clipper/windjammer. The same with sails ... there have been many classes of ships with the same/similar sailplans over the centuries. The sailplan defines them as barque-rigged or whatever, not what type of ship they are. City of Adelaide was originally a square rigged (ship rig) clipper until 1881 when she became a barque-rigged clipper. I hope this helps.

Cruickshanks (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cruickshanks, very helpful explanation. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Info box

I've changed some of the data in the info box to match the user guide. I've also added references for this information. I have deleted "displacement" as this appears erroneous - if there is a suitable reference for this, please reinstate with the reference.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Style proposal

Follows on from "Gender Neutral Article" section (above).

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history § Pronouns

This article was originally written with female pronouns ("she", "her") to refer to the ship. This style existed from 21 January 2006 until 19:28, 12 July 2010, when it was altered to the genderless "it" and "its". There was no preceding discussion on the talk page and the edit summary did not mention this change. This would appear to be a straightforward breach of the Manual of Style. It may be of note that the editor involved in this change now cites the relevant rule to defend the current choice of style.

The result of this undiscussed change is that this article no longer follows the style adopted by
(1) other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects, such as ships in Category:Tea clippers (details in extended content), or articles such as Clipper, etc.
(2) the majority of specialist books on similar ships, both newly published and older books
(3) virtually all the historical material on this and similar vessels, including diaries, newspaper reports, Lloyd's Register, etc.

One could give particular emphasis to the usage employed in the diaries written by people who emigrated to Australia on this ship ("she") (see extended content) and the Wikipedia article on the only other surviving clipper Cutty Sark (also using the feminine pronoun). The usage ("she") by the director of the project to restore City of Adelaide in the journal of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects may also have some authority.[6]

I propose that the "ship pronoun style" be changed back to the original style in which this article was written, namely "she" and "her".
Please comment on this proposal. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Study of Category:Tea clippers for usage of feminine or neuter pronouns to refer to a ship Entirely “she”/”her”: Ambassador (clipper), Ariel (clipper), Comet (clipper), Cutty Sark, Fiery Cross (clipper), Hallowe'en (clipper), Houqua (clipper), Lahloo (clipper), Leander (clipper), Lord of the Isles (clipper), Lothair (clipper), Memnon (clipper), Mimosa (ship), USS Nightingale (1851), The Great Tea Race of 1866, Sea Serpent (clipper), Sea Witch (1848 barque), Sea Witch (clipper), Serica (clipper), Sir Lancelot (clipper), Stag Hound, Stornoway (clipper), Surprise (clipper), Thermopylae (clipper), Witch of the Wave Mostly “she”/”her” (in each case, one usage of “it”): Challenger (clipper), Lammermuir (1864 clipper) Both usages (1 instance of each): Lammermuir (1856 clipper) No examples of either usage: Robin Hood (clipper) There are no articles in this category that exclusively use the neuter pronoun “it” to refer to a ship. Diaries of people who travelled on City of Adelaide The following use "she"/"her" when referring to a ship, with one instance of "it" in the Nancarrow family diary, which uses "she"/"her" thereafter. The other diaries in the collection have no usage of either type. http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock (Frederick Bullock a later mayor of Adelaide) http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_James_McLauchlan http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Melville_Miller http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Nancarrow_Family

• support 'she' This has a long tradition for ships. I fail to see why it's at all contentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support. I am entirely in support of this proposal. Changing the reference to a ship from she to it is ludicrous, for an entire teaching career I would explain to children that 'ships' are always she even if they are named after a male- such as the Carl Vinnen or the George the fifth. That is the English Language. Perhaps there is obscure dialect where it is done differently- but in British English (first contributor) about a Sunderland built composite, that was renamed by a Greek royal with a British title using the words ... and all who sail in her- a boat that is the pride of a Australian City- we use EN-BR or EN-AU conventions. This change is merely reverting vandalism. She is so well documented- for McLauchlan diaries to the Harold Underhills 1952 definitive work "Deepwater Sail" pp12/159/160 "she is one of two composite clippers remaining with us today". Indeed Underhills dedicates the book to her.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support There are two primary criteria for the use of she or its in a ships article. It must be consistent throughout the article and the choice of the original editor must be respected. Clearly the second condition has been violated and the article should be restored to the original usage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I have always created ship articles with "she". There was a discussion along these lines on the WP:SHIPS talkpage sometime ago regarding an editors belief that calling a ship "she" is out of date, I believe. I am not sure of the consensus, but it was heated. Newm30 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support reverting to WP:SHE4SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Ships during the age of sail were always referred to as she by anyone with knowledge of nautical matters. Today its not quite so universal although those who work in the maritime industry generally refer to ships as being feminine and it grates to hear a ship referred to as it. On Wiki even aesthetically challenged ships, such as the newsworthy MV Hoegh Osaka, are referred to as she so the City of Adelaide should be awarded the same courtesy.--Bluejacket (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Revert per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS as clearly no consensus for change is going to emerge here. Davidships (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Feminine pronouns are usual for ships; but we should follow Wikipedia guidelines, which prescribe staying with the original usage of the article – feminine, in this case. Maproom (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We've been here before. My personal preference for "she" is irrelevant; either is acceptable - but the article started with "she", and that is how it should stay. Shem (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the unanimity of the answers above, I plan to leave open for another 12 hours (thinking of editors in different time zones) and then (unless there is unexpected input) close off and start work on editing the article back to the agreed style.
Please add any further comments below this message.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed due to (1) unanimity of responses and (2) breach of WP:SHIPPRONOUNS validating the proposal. (WP:SNOW seems to apply in this instance.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Severe financial difficulty?

I note that none of the links to the pages on the official City of Adelaide website[7] work. Instead, there is a message on the home page of the website that says: "Sorry this website is offline. Due to financial difficulties and mounting debts the clipper ship 'City of Adelaide' website will be down indefinitely." Without a website, I don't see how they will raise any money - so this looks awfully like the start of a downward spiral.

Is anyone in a position to add any local news on this matter?

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's news to me - although I'm not directly involved with the City of Adelaide Clipper Preservation Trust, through being involved with the Port of Adelaide branch of the National Trust of SA, I do know people who are.

The most recent story to appear in the local press was on 25 December, City of Adelaide's final voyage revealed, and the one before that was on 31 October, Tours inside the City of Adelaide clipper resting in Port Adelaide will be offered for the first time, and these give no hint of impending financial problems.

The impression I've got is that the people involved with the City of Adelaide Clipper Preservation Trust have been quite successful at the corporate and engineering level, but perhaps less so on the community level in attracting and organising an effective volunteer base. I'll ask around. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just had advice that the website is a personal one owned by one of the Trust's directors, and not the property of the City of Adelaide Clipper Preservation Trust itself - they don't yet have an official website of their own, and so no means of making an official statement. There appears to be some sort of dispute going on between this director and the rest of the Trust. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully the material in the defunct website can be restored in some way - the most important element for this article being the diary transcripts. They need an official website a.s.a.p. - I spotted this when thinking I might visit the ship in a year or two, when some progress had been made and wanted to see a restoration plan (I live in the UK, so this would not be a day trip).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a very useful wiki- City of Adelaide Wiki with a portal to the diaries. I wonder if contact could be established and a little cooperation be put in place. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Port of Adelaide branch of the National Trust of SA (PoANT) will be setting up a local community history wiki for Port Adelaide by the end of this month, so there is definitely scope for articles on the City of Adelaide .and related topics at this end - see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 14. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on City of Adelaide (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730034804/http://www.scottishmaritimemuseum.org:80/adelaide.html to http://www.scottishmaritimemuseum.org/adelaide.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110512184710/http://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/ChiefExec/ArchiveCommRA.nsf/e9ee67f48fbb9003802569d700533758/af19a496b7884bc5802569f100346aab?OpenDocument to http://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/ChiefExec/ArchiveCommRA.nsf/e9ee67f48fbb9003802569d700533758/af19a496b7884bc5802569f100346aab?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of Adelaide (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005020348/http://www.headlandarchaeology.com/Services/consultancy/maritime_case_studies/city_of_adelaide.html to http://www.headlandarchaeology.com/Services/consultancy/maritime_case_studies/city_of_adelaide.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208111227/http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html to http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Length of article

OK, peeps, I know that the ship is a very significant vessel and I read in another of these Talk sections that some cutting down of the Rescue section of the article had been done, in 2013 I think. But...really. I mean, come on. That section is just ridiculously long (as are others). Is it *really* necessary to have soooooooooo much detail? Boscaswell talk 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on City of Adelaide (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429101609/http://cityofadelaide.org.au/devitt-and-moore.html to http://cityofadelaide.org.au/devitt-and-moore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024154/http://cityofadelaide.org.au/paxwiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock to http://cityofadelaide.org.au/paxwiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131212013656/http://www.wavy.com/news/local/norfolk/19th-century-clipper-ship-in-norfolk to http://www.wavy.com/news/local/norfolk/19th-century-clipper-ship-in-norfolk
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090515014912/http://www.oph.gov.au/ to http://oph.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)