Talk:SS Reina del Mar (1955)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Reina del Mar (1955) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
}}}}
Comment
editI would upload a picture from the Liverpool Ships web site - but life is too short to bother with all the hoops that need to be negotiated.
Why is the 'Tyne built ships' link included? She was built in Belfast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.74.25 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 'Ocean Monarch' may have been built on the Tyne.
- I am not quite sure what this means. Regarding
I would upload a picture from the Liverpool Ships web site - but life is too short to bother with all the hoops that need to be negotiated.
- Do you mean uploading it as a fair-use image? I haven't been able to find anything about fair-use of photos for ships, but perhaps I missed something.
- I updated the external link for the image.—CaroleHenson (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's no reason why we can't use an image of the ship under fair use rules. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent.—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I would have prefered a picture of her as the liner I travelled on (twice), rather than her last few years with Union Castle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.215.136 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Missing section
editThe article needs a "description" section giving details of measurements, tonnages, machinery etc. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are some details in the infobox, based upon what I could find.
- Out of curiousity, why would that need to be replicated in the body of the article? What would be a source of information where the details are missing?—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson: - take a look at RMS Magdalena (1948)#Description. That is what I mean.
- Incidentally, RMS Magdalena was the third and final ship buit by Harland & "it was all right when it left us" Wolff to be lost on her maiden voyage.--previously unsigned by Mjroots (talk)
- Mjroots, I understood what you meant. I was just wondering why a separate section is needed if it's in the inbox, no big deal, there's a reason I'm sure.
- I put in the information that I am aware of, which is less than the Magdalena... I've got to read up about what "Wolff to be lost on her maiden voyage" means.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- That was a little joke. H&W built three ships that were lost on their maiden voyage. Hence their motto could have been "It was all right when it left us..."
Mjroots (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Gotcha, that is funny!—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- That was a little joke. H&W built three ships that were lost on their maiden voyage. Hence their motto could have been "It was all right when it left us..."
- I put in the information that I am aware of, which is less than the Magdalena... I've got to read up about what "Wolff to be lost on her maiden voyage" means.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
She or it
editLloyd's of London sanctioned the use of the impersonal pronoun for ships some years ago, but speaking as a former seaman, the usage goes against the grain. What is more disturbing is the use of both she and it in one and the same article. I wonder if a consensus can be found? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)