Talk:SS Great Land

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SS Great Land article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Alaska

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

explanation

We cover technical topics, and, when we do, it is appropriate to use the technical terms used in that field. I think it is a terrible mistake to insert inaccurracies into articles out of disrespect for our readers intelligence.

Ships are a technical topic. wiktionary:allision is an entirely appropriate word to use in articles about ships.

Kaerana "corrected" allision to collision, in multiple articles, including this one. I reverted them to the correct term. He or she changed them back, claiming, on another article's talk page, "Maritime legal jargon can be used in maritime legal documents. In normal English, the word 'allision' is not used." Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia is going to be full of articles that readers may not be able to fully understand, based solely on their fund of general knowledge, where a full understanding actually requires them to learn something. And, for this reason, these articles should use the correct term, allision, instead of the inaccurate collision. Geo Swan (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaerana reverted my restoration of the correct usage less than ~~four~~ six minutes after my restoration. Geo Swan (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't appropriate to use technical terms, when there is a plain English alternative. A "collision" is when one thing hits another thing, and is 100% accurate and correct in all circumstances where a thing has hit another thing. Kaerana (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llammakey, you are an uninvolved third party, with expertise in maritime matters, could you address Kaerana's opinion that allision is "maritime legal jargon", not used in "normal English"? They made the same "correction" in Algoma Provider, an article you worked on. Geo Swan (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an opinion. The word does not exist in normal English usage, only in specialised maritime legal documents. [1]. Kaerana (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Kaerana was evading an indefinite block - so, an insincere vandal, whose arguments were not worth taking seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]