Jump to content

Talk:Bulk carrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBulk carrier has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 19, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 30, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Current status: Good article

Supramax

[edit]

The old handymax is now called a supramax and should be updated by the articles author. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.44.230 (talk) 22:15, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, perhaps the size classification could do with being updated. 80 - 90,000 dwt shoud be 'Kamsarmax', 90 - 100,000 dwt 'post-panamax', and 100 - 130,000 'baby cape'. These terms used in chartering circles at least. Brylaw (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Types

[edit]

I think this section could do with some tidying, geared bulkers are generally smaller ships (usually handy or supramax) there are some geared panamaxes (70 or so) but nothing I know of bigger than that. Also geared ships are self dischargers so the self discharger section is unecessary. Cranes, derricks, conveyor belts etc are all gear.Brylaw (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prices

[edit]

The prices for panamaxes and capesizes have now more than doubled since 2004 wich is cited in the article. I propose pricing a new capesize at 160 millions and a new panamax at 90 millions. Supramaxes in the 70s and handysizes 50s and below regarding various sizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.44.114 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change prices, that's fine. But doing so without changing the citations causes a serious problem. The current prices, as stated in the footnotes, are from UNCTAD in 2006, pages 41 and 42. HausTalk 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combination carrier photo

[edit]

Hello there just a small point slightly off topic. The photo used for the combination carrier actually shows a pure bulk carrier, a combi carrier will have tanker like arms for loading/discharging wet cargoes Brylaw (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, shipmate. I updated the photo accordingly. HausTalk 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular

[edit]

in the types section (and presumably throughout the article), the phrase bulk carriers is shortened to "bulkers". I'm loath to edit something where there is obviously a known dialect (see "boomers" versus SSN's), but wouldn't "bulk carriers" be more appropriate throughout the article? Protonk (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I realize now that the terms are equated in the first sentence. But is there some reference that shows which term is preferable? Protonk (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I went through a minute ago and counted 34 instances of "bulk carrier" and 84 of "bulker" in the article. I think from a style standpoint, this is preferable to 118 instances of "bulk carrier," but am open to debate. I can't imagine a book that would say "the term bulk carrier is preferable to bulker." On the other hand, Lloyd List, Det Norske Veritas, and Clarkson's all see fit to mix the two terms, and they seem to be in the same ballpark on google. Cheers. HausTalk 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of structural failure

[edit]

Apart from the causes already listed, Brittle fracture once was (and in rare cases, still is) a prime cause for failures of large ships in cold waters, bulk carriers included. Here is one (kinda academic) analysis of brittle fracture in bulk carriers:

TRIS

Here, cached, is a web page version of a print run-down of brittle fracture on the Lake Carling:

Google cache

here is canada's NTSB report for the Lake Carling:

Canada NTSB

Sort of a generalist rundown of ship losses due possibly to brittle fracture, cached"

more google cache

Historically, of course, that was why the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. I think the relative number of bulk carriers (and ships as a whole) sunk due to brittle fracture has probably dropped considerably with good computer modeling and process control for selecting steel, but there might be room for it in the article. Also, some of the failures due strictly to brittle fracture (and not cyclic stress, etc) are probably causes specifically by the shocks and stresses from waves as is already mentioned in the article. So I'll leave inclusion or exclusion to the experts. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of Edmund Fitzgerald sinking is still not understood. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article is generally very good, although the prose could use a brush up and the "See also" section seems to be an arbitrary list of shipwrecks. Bulk Carrier shipwrecks might do better to be listed properly on a seperate page rather than partially here. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

There's a map, captioned "Bulk carriers by flag state", but the image is actually "Oil-tankers-map-with-top-10.svg", listing oil tankers. There used to be "Bulkers-flag-state-map-with-top-10.svg", but it was deleted ‎("Universally replaced by Image:Oil-tankers-map-with-top-10.svg. Reason was "Was in category "Duplicate", exact duplicate""). What's wrong? Muad (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is correct now: File:Bulkers-flag-state-map-with-top-10.svg . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured?

[edit]

Why isn't this article featured? It has several pictures and cited sources, a clear animation (most FA's don't have that), and adequate amount of information (not too much, not too little). History section could be expanded a bit though, but other than that, it seems fitting. Colonel Marksman (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulk carrier/archive1. From my point of view, it's mostly people noticing errors and willing to take more time to point them out rather than fixing them. Sad. If you have any more sources on the History part, I'll take them happily. I wrote the original article in French (FA) and used everything I could find... le Korrigan →bla 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose merging and redirecting "Very large ore carrier" here. The additional information in that article fits well under the "size categories" section, like VLCC and ULCC in the article about oil tankers. Tupsumato (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article I agree it could be merged. AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

Hi, I do not think the articles on Bulk carrier and VLOC (Very large ore carriers) should be merged, because :

a) Bulk carriers are a large category (and can be expanded upon to a very large extent - I guess at the moment it has not simply because this information is more readily available in shipping directories like Lloyds register and DNV)

b) VLOC (Very large ore carriers) is new technology and is / will be prone to further expansion as time goes.

Hence it is best to keep them as separate articles (as it currently is) and allow each to expand.

Merging the two will be akin merging categories like continent and city.

Notthebestusername (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bauxite Fuel?

[edit]

Can someone explain this:

"This strategy gave an interesting advantage to carriers of bauxite and similar fuel cargoes".

Bauxite is not a fuel, so why does a coal burning ship have an advantage carrying bauxite? If no one can explain it, I'll delete it. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bulk carrier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bulk carrier. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulk carrier. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

  • There's an "additional citations needed" orange banner at the top of the page since July 23.
  • In connection to the above, there lots of prose that need citations including entire paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Bulk carrier

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There has been an "additional citations needed" orange banner at the top of the article since July 2023, and uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulk_carrier&oldid=1258404782"