Talk:MV Queen of Surrey

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Queen of Surrey. 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/20070927010612/http://www.bcferries.com/about/fleet/profile-queen_of_surrey.html to http://www.bcferries.com/about/fleet/profile-queen_of_surrey.html

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

Y 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) 05:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical data

I suggest a bit of re-ordering here. The first paragraph is an unreadable splurge of numbers that would surely be better in the infobox. User Llammakey reverted my last edit showing the current tonnage, but surely the ship's current measurements are more relevant than its original measurements (certainly no less relevant). I'm not interested in an edit war with someone who clearly knows his stuff, so rather than press ahead I'd like to get some consensus. My idea is to expand the infobox and add a new section: Current measurements. Or does anyone have a better idea?

Also, the page says that the remeasurement was recent, but if the ship is subject to the 1968 Tonnage Convention then the remeasurement must have happened by 1992. If the new numbers are the result of the later refit, then the 1992 remeasurement will be hard to discover and probably isn't relevant. However, it makes no sense to have a vessel operating in 2020 only showing tonnage that has been obsolete for nearly three decades.Patrick Neylan (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need WP:RS that say that the remeasurement happened on a certain date. That is why I used the original construction information in the infobox. I know when those numbers happened. I have no idea when all the remeasurements took place, just that a certain time, it had been remeasured. As for the "splurge of numbers", please go read any WP:FAC on ships. That is how the articles are constructed. Llammakey (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]