Talk:SS Washingtonian (1913)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. There's a rough consensus that disambiguation is unnecessary unless and until other articles are created that make this title ambiguous.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

SS Washingtonian → SS Washingtonian (1913) – There were other ships named Washingtonian, including one launched in 1919 that was involved in a collision with USS Henley (DD-391) in 1938. Thus the current title should be a shipindex page. This should be an uncontroversial request, but as it affects a featured article I'm bringing it here for discussion. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support conversion to a shipindex. (Perhaps by redirecting to a Washingtonian (ship) article) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That redirect would suggest a full-rigged ship named Washingtonian. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Washingtonian (ship) would be any kind of ship whatsoever, since many articles on Wikipedia disambiguated with "(ship)" are not fully rigged ships of any sort. So, such a title for the shipindex would allow inclusion of more types of ships, not just screw steamers. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, no other article to make this title ambiguous. Hatnote can direct to the Henley, if needed. The proposed ship index article needn't be placed at the base name. It could be titled "List of ships named SS Washington", for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as this move deals with purely hypothetical articles which have not been created yet. If someone creates an article about any other ship called SS Washington then we can judge its notability, encyclopedic merit etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not a requirement of WP:SHIPS to have all bluelinks in a shipindex page. Shipindex pages may be created once it becomes apparent that there is a need for one, although I would not support a shipindex page consisting entirely of redlinks. The other Washingtonian falls within the project scope of WP:SHIPS (in excess of 100'/100 tons) and is highly likely to be notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply Firstly, "highly likely to be notable enough to sustain an article" is not quite sufficient, we need to see this article to be sure, and since nobody has yet created this hypothetical article this creates an element of doubt. Secondly, even with it, we might decide that this ship is still the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS Washingtonian (1913). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/1major/inactive/bethsparrowspoint.htm

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What?

A collision with a wooden schooner sank a 7,000 ton steel freighter in a few minutes? How did that happen? Was there an enquiry? More information is needed to make sense of this. Peter Bell (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This schooner was not some little sailing boat--it was a five-masted monster nearly as long as Washingtonian and probably a few thousand tons in weight itself. (Supposedly the schooner's tonnage (not a weight in tons) was 3,065 grt.) Such a huge wooden ship would no doubt be quite sturdily built. And this massive schooner drove into Washingtonian's side, not the other way around. It's not surprising that a steel freighter of that era could be fatally holed by such a collision, even though it also proved fatal to the schooner. Considering the economic consequences, I'm sure there was an enquiry, but I'd guess it would have concentrated on how the ships ended up colliding in the first place.--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Value of the freight is nearer to $650.000, not $1.000.000 ???

The estimation of a "$1,000,000 cargo of 10,000 long tons of raw Hawaiian sugar" seems a bit off to me.

10.000 long tons = 10.200 metric tons = 10.200.000 kg

Valued at the (pre-sinking) price of 6.39 cents per kg, the value of the sugar would have been

10.200.000 kg * 0.0639 $/kg = 651.780 $

That is not really a $1.000.000 cargo, except maybe for the tabloids of the time ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.94.230 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)