Talk:Pride of Baltimore

This article was nominated for deletion on August 13, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Baltimore Task Force.

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

Deletion

This article was recently listed on Votes for Deletion. However, I have reason to believe that this was not a serious listing but a form of trolling by User:Erwin Walsh - see that page for much similar activity undertaken by this recently-created account. I have therefore removed the VfD notice; while this breaches the letter of the VfD policy, I don't think it breaches the spirit of Wikipedia.

This should not be seen as a challenge to any legitimate VfD nomination. PeteVerdon 20:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page does not deserve deletion, and when I'm finished typing this I will be voting against that very proposition. However, it's not appropriate to simply remove the vfd tag --- even if you really believe the nominator is wrong --- this is something primarily attempted by vandals. If you don't think something should be deleted, say so; removing the tag undermines your case. (All IMHO, o' course; I'm a newbie myself, so if you want to ignore me, go right ahead.) --fuddlemark 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I believe the nominator is wrong, but that he is malicious. If he was simply wrong, well that's only my opinion, we go through the VfD process and see what everyone else thinks, and if he's indeed wrong then the article is kept. In that case, removing the notice is indeed entirely the wrong thing to do. However, this is a different situation - being malicious (as he's nominated many articles, often minutes after being created and while still being edited), the nominator has made the nomination purely to cause extra work, not to initiate a discussion, and hence there is no "case" to argue either way. Removing the notice is more like a speedy deletion for vandalism, in which the full process is likewise ignored when there's clearly no call for it.

However, I will leave the tag up for now. PeteVerdon 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete this. Grunherz 18 August 2005

Analysis of sinking

There have been several analyses of the Pride of Baltimore. One reference is:
Sailing Vessel Stability-with Particular Reference to the Pride of Baltimore Casualty Chatterton, Howard A. Maxham, John C. ; Marine Technology, Vol. 26, No. 2 4/1/1989--Billymac00 (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Encyclopedic Tone

The "Baltimore's Renaissance" tone is way too flowery for this wiki. A template has been put up, but I think it's worth calling attention to here as well174.0.253.201 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@174.0.253.201 I came here to say this. I think this is caused in large part by the fact that multiple sentences are lifted verbatim from one of the news articles used as a source. 216.116.230.225 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I've added another template. 174.0.253.201 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, with a note. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]