Jump to content

Talk:Falls of Clyde (ship)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only surviving ship claim

[edit]

I have just visited the Pommern, an iron hulled four masted barque, now a floating museum in Mariehamn harbour, Finnish Aaland Islands. I therefore dispute the claim that Falls of Clyde is the only surviving four-masted sailing ship in the world. There are probably more.... -- User:80.223.251.134 14:35, 26 Aug 2005

That depends on which definition of the word ship you use. The original meaning, and probably most appropriate when talking about a vessel of the Falls of Clyde's age, is a sailing vessel which sets square sails on all its masts. By that definition, a barque, which sets fore and aft sails on its aftermost mast, is not a ship. Of course by the modern definition, it is. See the article ship rig. -- Chris j wood 18:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There never were many (fully rigged) ships with more than three masts. The big ships were a response to competition from steamers. At the same time, or slightly later, the big barques were a response to the same competition. The ships sought economy of scale while the barques sought the same plus the ability to sail with relatively small crews. In the short term, the winners were the barques. In the long term motor ships overtook them all, including the steamers.
This said, it may be suspected that the big German ships were not built for economy so much as for prestige and perhaps to train a naval reserve. It is less surprising then, to find that a ship from the same source as the Pommern and the Pamir, the Preussen, was a five-masted ship. See Preussen (Schiff). (RJP 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
"Prestige"? German bash much? The Preussen, as with all Flying P-liners, was/were EXCLUSIVLY made for EFFICIENY, not flaunting. 93.227.203.196 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For details of another of these Flying P ships (in English) see this history of the Padua (a four-masted barque). (RJP 08:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

According to [1] and [2] she was originally a full rigged ship (i.e. square-rigged on all masts), rerigged as a barque in the early 20th century (i.e. square rigged on the first two or three masts and fore-and-aft rigged on the others), and restored as a full rigged ship. So the distinction is perhaps a bit too pedantic. Gdr 17:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Set" or "sea"?

[edit]

The last word of the first line of verse is presently set, but I can't make sense of "sailing across the set." Sea would make more sense, and would also fit in with the A,A,B,B,C,C,... pattern of rhymes, which set does not. Does anyone know if this could be a typo? --Badger151 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron-hulled ships

[edit]

Hello All --

I worked for almost twenty years as a volunteer on the ship Wavertree, a three-masted, full-rigged, iron-hulled ship, moored at South Street Seaport Museum in downtown Manhattan. She's still there, floating away. As a matter of fact, when I first looked at the Falls of CLyde picture, I thought I was looking at the Wavertree. Same paint scheme, same lines (at least as far as I can tell from the photo). Built in 1885 in Wavertree by Leland and Co. Many of us older volunteers are certainly still among the living, and many more newer volunteers are working there right now. In fact, my wife is the Volunteer Coordinator for the Museum.

-- Victor Stanwick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.232.202 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant?

[edit]

Could someone pls flesh out which years it was open to the public, and in what form during various stages? We used to go there around 90 or 91, and it was a restaurant/bar! I don't recall even feeling like it was a "museum" of any sort -- just a restaurant/bar aboard a tied-up ship!

When did that end?

66.3.106.10 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against Bishop Museum

[edit]

Violation of NPOV and undue weight; Jeanie Ainlay is not notable enough for the lead section of this article. You are welcome to represent this manufactured controversy any way you like, but you need to be neutral. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edit, done quickly, offends you. Please consider it like a placeholder which I put it in quickly mainly to capture the current, very relevant news article, which has other info to develop this wikipedia article. I agree the treatment should be refined to avoid appearance of POV and undue weight, although the controversy is documented and highly relevant, and I believe it should be mentioned in this article. Let's fix it. doncram (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

[edit]

Hey, recent edits seemed to improve the wording of the article, but raise a concern or two for me also.

The edits changed the intro from "Falls of Clyde is one of the few surviving iron-hulled, four-masted full rigged ship, and the only surviving sail-driven oil tanker in the world." to say that is it is the only surviving one of the first type. That reads better of course, but it is an unsourced new claim, which i presume is FALSE! (By the way, i believe that previous versions of the article had "full rigged ships" with a plural "S". The copy does need improvement.)

Also, lesser issue: now there's a run-on sentence later starting in 1989 and ending years later, about NRHP and NHL designations.

I don't want to just revert the article back, so could the new editor, and/or someone else, please take a look at these? doncram (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiuser100 is continuing. I disagree with his/her deleting a references section mention of an interview, with edit summary suggesting something about primary research. If it was the source of info in the article, then it should stay in. It doesn't help to pretend that it is not the source of some info, although you might not like use of primary sources, and certainly more specific sourcing in the article would be nice. Also Primary sources can be used, with care, by wikipedia policy. I don't believe Wikiuser is familiar with the sources in the article, even the available on-line ones; the edits look to me like improvements based on making interpretations of the wikipedia article alone. I tend to think all Wikiuser edits here will have to be deleted, will invite to discuss here. doncram (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "...the edits look to me like improvements based on making interpretations of the wikipedia article alone. I tend to think all Wikiuser edits here will have to be deleted." These statements are contradictory. Please clarify. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: it looked to me that WikiUser100's recent edits appeared to be copyedits only, based only on the material in the article. Many of the copyedits indeed helped with sentence flow and organization, etc. However, in at least two cases I identified quickly, the copyedits reflect interpretations that are not justified (1. that the ship is the only one of the 4 masted whatever type, and 2. that all the material in the article is supported by references left in the article and none of the material is based upon an interview that was removed by the copyediting. It is not even known if the interview mentioned is something reported in one of the printed references in the article, another possibility). That is 2 strikes already. My not-well-studied view, is that given at least these two mistakes it is easier to revert to the last version before WikiUser100 started editing, and start over. Certainly that would be easy to do but would also be harsh upon WikiUser100's contributions. Perhaps it could be managed approximately that way, but then with an effort to reintroduce the good changes that an editor knows are supported by references the editor has read and has at hand. However, honestly i am not willing to do that myself for this article, hence my attraction to the easy alternative. I'll offer freely that I am not local to Hawaii and not intensely interested here. Perhaps I'll raise a note over at WikiProject Hawaii requesting some attention to sort this out better; would that be helpful? Actually i thot there were more people watching this article. doncram (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk surgical alteration of my edits, fine. A categoric revert of all five edits is unwarranted, vast overkill, and simply out of the question. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in the matter. If you are up to a surgical amendment to address your concerns, fine, I'll check back. Perhaps the coming weekend I will have time to give them some attention myself. Do nothing precipitous in the meanwhile. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scuttled

[edit]

Word has it that the Falls of Clyde has been scuttled out at sea. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.46.26 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakwater

[edit]

IP Editor 96.49.3.32 added this text to the last paragraph of §History. Doesn't belong there so I've moved it here.

[This does not make sense as there is and was no breakwater in Vancouver. The writer was likely thinking of Royston on Vancouver Island where there is a breakwater of old ships.]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in Magnum PI

[edit]

During the second season of Magnum PI, in an episode titled Memories are Forever Part II, a scene takes place on the Falls of Clyde. For a brief moment a brass plate can be seen with the words "Built by Russell & Co. "Falls of Clyde" Port Glasgow Scotland." The show originally aired November 5, 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itocalc (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Falls of Clyde (ship). 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's the end for the Falls of Clyde

[edit]

Hawaii is looking for RFP's to scrap the ship [3] dm (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falls_of_Clyde_(ship)&oldid=1237300827"