|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cutty Sark article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 23, 2004, November 23, 2005, November 23, 2006, November 22, 2007, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, and November 22, 2010.|
- 1 earlier comments
- 2 Article name
- 3 Requested move
- 4 What is a "yd" of sail?
- 5 and she is the only classic clipper still surviving
- 6 She's on fire
- 7 Coverage of Fire
- 8 Removed excessive detail from lead parapgraph
- 9 Slave trade?
- 10 Construction: wood or iron?
- 11 Disambiguation required
- 12 She/It Revisited
- 13 Fire damage
- 14 Links
- 15 Other preserved clippers
- 16 Infobox
- 17 River Leven
- 18 Coverage of fire
- 19 thanks wiki
- 20 Grandfather
- 21 Figurehead Photo
- 22 Insurance Policy?
- 23 Added Internal Links
- 24 Conservation and fire
- 25 Pictures?
- 26 Restoration is a disaster
- 27 length of fire
- 28 Layout of article
- 29 record speed
- 30 Design
- 31 JKWS=cutty sark
- 32 Sale price
- 33 Links
- 34 Thermopylae maiden voyage London to Melbourne 61 or 63 days?
- 35 1450 tons of tea
- 36 Wikipedia technical point
- 37 Cutty Sark Moored in Melbourne Photograph
- 38 Replica Project
- 39 Too much detail
- 40 Two different Captains named Moore?
- 41 Info box - general characteristics
The first paragraph refers to the Cutty Sark as "it" ("It is preserved in..."); following paragraphs refer to the Cutty Sark as "she". Why is this not consistent? Is a clipper neuter while a ship is female?
- Sloppiness - should be "she" throughout. Some people probably think it's sexist and try to avoid it. (Note that Russian ships are traditionally "he" though.) Stan 15:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Great article. However, I want to move it from Cutty Sark to Cutty Sark (ship) to make room for a much-needed article on the phrase from which the ship took its name. That has historical precedence, and so should be the root article. I hope everyone is cool with this. --Doric Loon 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The precedence rule is "most common", not "first use", so you'd want to think about whether "Cutty Sark" most likely connotes ship, garment, or drink to a randomly-chosen English speaker. The garment is ultra-obscure, probably not one person in 10,000 knows the etymology of the ship's name. Another test is to look at the "what links here" - if you move an article, you should make all the links point to the correct place. Also note that the garment article should be lowercased, since it's not a proper name, so one way to finesse is to use "Cutty Sark" for the ship and "cutty sark" for the garment. Stan 17:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I was about to vaguely agree with Stan Shebs, then I noticed that Doric Loon had already moved it. But that evcn several hours after that move, many links that were clearly intended for the ship were still pointing to Cutty Sark and hence now to the wrong article. And that is simply not acceptable. So I've moved the new Cutty Sark article to Cutty Sark (garment), and attempted to move Cutty Sark (ship) back to Cutty Sark to fix those incorrect links. Unfortunately I cannot make that move, so I've requested an administrator to do so. -- Chris j wood 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cutty Sark (ship) → Cutty Sark. User:Doric_Loon moved it the other way, against an objection on talk page and without properly disambiguating existing links to the article. See discussion above. -- Chris j wood 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support - obviously -- Chris j wood 18:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)(you proposed if you vote as well, your vote will be double counted Philip Baird Shearer)
- Support - common usage, someone should create Cutty Sark (disambiguation) with a list and a mention like "For other usages see Cutty Sark (disambiguation)" at the top of the Cutty Sark article Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given below. Please remember that most people who find their way to this discussion will be fans of tall ships, but theirs is a minority interest. --Doric Loon 20:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)Support - I withdraw my opposition - see below. --Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005
- Support primary topic disambiguation. James F. (talk) 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One thing I want to insist: I did NOT do anything against an objection on talk page. When I moved this article there was virtually nothing on talk page. Since there are now other people turning up here, that's obviously a different situation. Also: I DID change most of the links. I was called away before I could finish, and have just returned with the intention of doing so. But I won't do anything more without consensus.
- Now as far as what takes priority is concerned: GARMENT obviously doesn't. The phrase Cutty Sark was used that way once in a poem 200 year ago and never again. So I doubt if "Cutty Sark (Garment)" is helpful to anyone. But I think the quote from the poem as taken over proverbially into every-day English does take the prize, both for being the logical starting point and for being the principle usage: that's how most people today know the word. Someone does something well and others shout "Well done cutty sark". You are much more likely to meet that in every day life than the name of a 19th centuy boat - unless you happen to live in Greenwich or are particularly into nautical things.
- So obviously I'm for having things the way I tried to make them this afternoon. But if someone else has a really sensible suggestion, I'd like to hear it. --Doric Loon 19:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have never heard that expression in common usage. Is it Scots colloquial? Esthameian 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A question, BTW. Stan's suggestion of having two articles distinguished by capitalisation (Cutty Sark on the ship and Cutty sark or even Burns' original Cutty-sark on the colloquial usage) is very neat. But is that not confusing for users? It's the kind of thing I would have expected a Wiki policy against. If it IS thought good style then it would be a compromise which would make everyone here happy. (And there would be no need for a disambiguation page because the article on colloquial usage can point to subsequent developments!) --Doric Loon 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nope, one of the oft-cited reasons for captialisation is that we can have to articles whose titles differ solely in capitalisation. James F. (talk) 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then there is our solution. I will move CS(Garment) to Cutty-sark and you can put the ship article back where it originally was. That resolves the problem, I think, to everyone's satisfaction! --Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005
On possible confusion between upper and lower case versions, yes, that should always be considered when choosing titles. For instance, if I had a concept with two synonyms almost equally common, but one of them was case-ambiguous with some other title, I would choose the other synonym, with lots of disambiguation cross-links at the top of all the articles involved. One also wants plenty of redirs for minor variations (with/without hyphen, etc), so as to channel people in the directions they want to go. Stan 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is a "yd" of sail?
Are the measurements given for the sails in "yd" actually the area of each sail in square yards? If so, all the conversion to meters are wrong, and even if colloquial usage shortens it to "yards" it should be quoted here as "yd²". To me, it seems that is likely what these are, but I'm not certain enough to fix it yet, but if they are length units and not area units, which dimension is being measured? Gene Nygaard 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, the page here states she had "over 32,000 square feet" of sail. The figures in the article are probably not areas in square yards, therefore, as they don't add up to more than a tenth of this. Shame there's no source for the data, really.... --Casper Gutman 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I found the reference from which these numbers were taken, and they are the lengths of the yards, in yards. They are not the original lengths but those after the yards were cut down at the end of her career. IMO we should list the original sizes, but I won't labour the point. I've added the reference to the article. It doesn't list the sail areas, but they could probably be worked out by the same method that the author used to work out the lengths. --Heron 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
and she is the only classic clipper still surviving
I've deleted "and she is the only classic clipper still surviving" from the opening paragraph. Surely this statement can't be true. There are plenty of square-rigged ships still around. Some are still sailing, some are not (for example, The Peking. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- She is one of very, very few, and certainly the only in half decent condition. City of Adelaide is another I know of, possibly the only other surviving. And she is in VERY poor condition (or was last I heard). The Peking on the other hand is a very different animal all together. Thats like comparing a Ferrari to truck. --LiamE 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember, a clipper is a very specific type of sailing ship. I believe that there is at least one still sailing, but there is a possibility that she might be a replica. Cutty Sark is certainly one of very few in good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
She's on fire
I've just heard that she is "100% ablaze". 18.104.22.168 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm SatuSuro 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have added camera phone pic. But the text needs a spell and grammer check. Jeff24 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Terrible news! ممتاز 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Quite naturally it's the top news over here in England, images seem to show the ship as being a complete wreck, like a toy boat that got too close to the barbeque User:Lyinginbedmon
Terrible news indeed but [thankfully] it looks to have been exagerated and overestimated - they reckon the damage is no where near as extensive as first thought and of the 50% of the ship that was still on site, 80% has been damaged in some way - so its not like the whole thing has gone forever. With any luck Brown might lend some money from his coffers to pay for repairs...then again he'll probably want to send it up to scotland to renovate some scottish ship...
- The Cutty Sark IS a Scottish ship...
Coverage of Fire
21 May 2007 22.214.171.124 (→Fire - Changed link to Ref and removed LinkSpam) This anonymous user removed a link to a Live Blog of the coverage. I have restored it as relevant for the duration of the event. Please do not vandalise. I will remove after 24 hours. User:julianduk 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- This link has now been removed several times by different user. In WP:EL it states that links to blogs should be avoided. As the fire is currently big news in the UK there are plenty of reputable news sites with coverage of the fire, a personal blog does not contribute in this case. -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for engaging in the talk page and providing an explanation, rather than just deleting the link. I'd argue that during a rapidly changing situation a site citing authoritative sources is acceptable - as effectively created from authoritative sources, and conforming to "be bold". People have had knowledge they would have missed otherwise.
Anyway, they've caught up now and material is available, so I'm going to start building a paragraph with authoritative references. I'd welcome people to work with me.
Can I start with a couple of questions / suggestions:
- Material that I would like to refer to that is not there currently: National paper reports, amateur video on the BBC site, eyewitness accounts.
- Do we create a separate para, or modify the existing desciption using the new material?
- Can we refer to mobile phone footage used on BBC website? Permission for them to do anything with it is a condition of submission.
- Is a report by a local resident on a local website authoritative for the locality? It seems to me an obvious yes.
This article has very few citations so more references would be appreciated, if there is media report detailing something that is not covered in the article then please include it. The question of a seperate paragraph or modify it depends on what is being written. Take the following (very simple) sentence.
- The Cutty Sark caught fire on 21 May<ref>Metropils News on Cutty Sark Fire</ref>.
- Knowing the fire was started deliberatly this sentence would be modified to:
- The Cutty Sark was deliberatly set alight on 21 May.<ref>Metropils News on Cutty Sark Arson</ref>.
- If a suspect was arrested then arrested the would (in my Opinion) warrant a new paragraph/line.
- The Cutty Sark was deliberatly set alight on 21 May.<ref>Metropils News on Cutty Sark Arson</ref> Bob the Builder was later arrested on suspicion of arson.<ref>Metropils News on Bob the Builder arrest.</ref>
'Is a report by a local resident on a local website authoritative for the locality? simple answer yes. Complex answer yes - but that report will be echoed on every major/reputable news site, so it is best to inlcude it only once and from a major news site or established/recognised local website E.G. Manchester Evening News or London Standard. One final tip is avoid recentisn (see WP:RECENTISM). In 12 months time this fire will be only a minor footnote. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start looking.
- In 12 months time this fire will be only a minor footnote.
- I'd disagree there. It's never been burnt before, and restoration will take 5 years or so. I'd suggest a good analogy would be that this fire will be to the Cutty Sark as the Great Fire of London is to London. Perhaps one of 4 or 5 important points in its history.
- I suspect History will record this in similar fashion to the fire at Windsor Palace. Big News for a week then, after the intial "Shock" people will accept it. The fire will remain an important part of the history of the Cutty Sark but I doubt whether it will, in the long term, impact on the minds of the public. Only Time will tell :-)........... -- Rehnn83 Talk 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed excessive detail from lead parapgraph
I removed much of the detail of the fire from the lead paragraph because I felt it was unnecessarily detailed for the opening paragraph. If necessary this detail can go into the Fire section.--A bit iffy 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that it says that she was destined for slave trade? Is that some synonym for the China Tea Trade in English...? In that case, I would think it is rather confusing to foreigners... Too bad about the fire, hope she can be restored anyway. Kjetil Kjernsmo 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That was just some transient vandalism by an IP user. If it sounds fishy, check the revision history. —dgiestc 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, slavery was abolished in Britain almost a century before 'Cutty Sark' was built. ChrisRed 07:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Construction: wood or iron?
It seems that the ship had wood planking on an iron frame. This should be included in the article. -- Petri Krohn 08:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of uses of the phrase "Cutty Sark" or "cutty sark", (see Cutty-sark), I believe a disambiguation page would be useful. Anyone want to take this on? If not, I'll have a go, but it won't be until tonight. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- There already is a disambiguation page, isn't there? Cutty-sark looks pretty much like one... or am i missing something? Jamamala 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Err... yes it does, cos I just started it ;) after Tivedshambo's suggestion. --Mais oui! 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that'd be why then... Jamamala 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiki style on this issue? British ships are traditionally referred to as "she" so my suggestion is that all refs in the article to "it/its" etc be changed to "she". Everyone agree? --ukexpat 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - it's a British Ship therefore she is appropiate. -- Rehnn83 Talk 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article written as if the fire is only a small one. The article still includes sections about the conservation effort to restore it. It's gone, it's been completly destroyed by fire and theres no bringing it back. They can't restore it, this whole article needs to be re-written.
- Read the article and other news items. Half the ship wasn't even there. The remaining parts were badly damaged, but enough remains to make a rebuild possible. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Half of the ship was off-site at the time of the fire, and about 80% of the parts on-site were damage, leaving about 60% left that is undamaged, and that 40% damage isn't entirely irreparable. The Cutty Sark hasn't sung it's swan-song yet User:Lyinginbedmon
- Todays newspapers refer to most of the damage affecting the teak decks,which were 1950s replacements anyway. The entry based on reference 10 does not seem to take account of the claims that as much as 60% of the original remains - perhaps needs more neutral comment? Esthameian 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the links on this page is a link to a model ship sales site. This seems quite inappropriate.
mercator79126.96.36.199 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- As does your plugging of another retail outlet. Shame on you. 188.8.131.52 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Other preserved clippers
Could it be made clear, in the article, which are the other remaining clipper ships?Duncan.france 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The "See also" section already links to the City of Adelaide (1864) article. --Mais oui! 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added an infobox but I wasn't sure about her complement and range, can someone fill these fields in please? --Philip Stevens 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Coverage of fire
Do we need an hour by hour report on the Fire? I would think enough time has passed that this could all be replaced with a synopsis that covers the entire event. 184.108.40.206 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed Boatman 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to improve this article, but if it wasn't enough that you lot like to insult and be rude to newcomers now, you also don't let them get involved.
Whatever happened to those ethics Wikipedia had not so long ago? Looks like the project has got so big that it can forget about them. Wiki old schooler 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Though nice to hear and an experience I also once had with the Golden Hinde, I did not think Wiki was the place for mentioning personal growth through making of a model, therefor I removed the insert.--Edmund Patrick 09:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
what's a "Neetard"?
I have uploaded my September 2006 photo of Cutty Sark's figurehead if anybody thinks it would be helpful somewhere in the article.
Sanba38 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
all the recent talk has been of Raising money for the repairs and of Lottery grants and government handouts... as a major London Tourist attraction the Cutty-Sark would have had Insurance to cover fire or damage so why is the money being provided by the UK Taxpayer?
220.127.116.11 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Tony Spumoni
Added Internal Links
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 10:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Conservation and fire
This section needs a lot of attention and clean up. It was obviously written as events took place and reads like it. For example:
- The fire was reported to the fire service at 03:46 UTC by members of the public. A representative of London Fire Brigade said at 06:09 UTC that the fire was well under control and that damage was extensive but until the experts could make a full damage assessment survey, it was unknown just how much has been lost. The fire was declared by a journalist on site to have been out at 06:21 UTC, with most of the wooden structure in the centre having been lost.
Seriously, do we really need to know, almost 4 months after the event, that at exactly 6:09 UTC the Fire Brigade said that the fire was under control?
This is one of the big problems with writing about current events... people want to "inform" the world through Wikipedia, and put the latest information about the unfolding event in their articles ... but you end up with a piss poor article once the event is "old news" and people lose interest in editing. Blueboar 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100%. See what I've written about this on my user page -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Restoration is a disaster
- A gentle reminder to contributors below, wiki rules are that the discussion page 'is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject', it is a forum for discussing the articles content. The paragraphs below make no recommendations re updating the article content. Thanks for your understanding. Boatman (talk)
The chief engineer, Professor Peter Mason, has resigned, saying the project will damage the ship and should be stopped, etc. see Andrew Gilligan's article Cutty Sark Disaster: The £11 Million Nail In the Coffin --Robkam (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised... I saw the Cutty Sark in 1984. Apart from the impression the ship herself left on me, the thing which stuck in my mind was the singular lack of a sprinkler-system or fire-extinguishers below decks. Some years later, i read an article in a woodworking-magazine (and i'm sorry to say that i can't remember which one). In the article, a furniture-maker had stated that while the keel was being partially replaced, he had visited and asked the foreman at the site if it would be possible to obtain pieces of the original keel, which was made of a hardwood originating in India (and which is extinct today). The foreman refused flatout. Eventually, the man received a small piece of wood- while the workers there were warming their hands on a fire kept going in an oil-drum. It was fuelled by- wait for it- pieces of Cutty Sark-keel...
This vessel is a part of world heritage. The people in charge there are incapable and irresponsible at the very best. I'm not sure what they are at the very worst... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
She did have an, albeit rudimentary, sprinkler system installed in the 1950s but the main water feed pipe for the sprinklers was in the way of the works and had to be disconnected. The feed could have been temporarily diverted but this was not done. It is well known in the construction industry that construction sites where hot work is often in progress are vulnerable to fires so the need for ongoing fire protection could have been anticipated.(Bluejacket (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC))
length of fire
the article states that the fire burned for several hours before being brought under control, however in a report by London Fire Brigade, of the investigation into the incident, it states that they were called at 04:57 hrs and that by 05:28 hrs the fire was under control and "a few minutes later only burning embers in the lower deck remained" source: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CuttySarkFireReport-29Sep08.pdf
Layout of article
It seems to me that the section Construction and entymology should be split into two, either as the separate sections Construction and Entymology, or the part dealing with the construction should become the start of the section History and the bit about the origin of the name should be in a section Entymology. As I've come to this years after the article was written and I see that this part of the article has been moved around a bit in the past I will not do it immediately but ask if anybody has got any firm opinions? I think that a bit more about the origin of the name would make a useful contribution here and (if I teeter on the boundary of being encyclopedic), I might even draw attention to the interesting point that such a racy name was chosen at the height of Victorian prudery. Any thoughts anybody? Charwelton (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been revising the section on the ships history to accord more with that posted by the Cutty Sark's owners website. In particular I have removed the below passage about the ship's fastest speed and racing the wool trade with thermopylae. These numbers might be correct, but I see someone else has already challenged part of them. Anyone have any corroboration? Sandpiper (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
She recovered her reputation under Captain Richard Woodget, winning the wool race 10 years out of 10 (and beating Thermopylae every time they met). She posted Australia-to-Britain times of as little as 67 days, and in one instance outsailed the fastest steamship there was then, RMS Britannia. Her best run, 360 nmi (670 km) in 24 hours (an average 15 kn (28 km/h)), was said to have been the fastest of any ship of her size.
I remember the "Cutty Sark" coming up the Thames to the present dry dock. One version of the design story, current in the 1950s was that the original owner of this ship had previously purchased a sail/steamer "The Tweed" and had it converted to pure sail and that it had proved fast. He wanted a smaller fast version for the tea trade. Linton liked the design of "The Tweed" but thought that the stern area was the main problem about increasing speed and the "Cutty Sark" incorporated the perceived design improvements.AT Kunene (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- not really being an expert but books seem to disagree to what extend the design was copied from Tweed, instructed by willis or simply down to Linton. We dont see it now, but at the time there were several people designing these ships to the same basic pattern but with subtle differences. Willis seems to have spread his bets with regard to designs. I personally suspect he took a flyer on a bright new guy. (and also seems to have got himself a bargain)Sandpiper (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know how come signal flags spelling jkws might have come to mean 'cutty sark' as stated in the article? JKWS sounds perfectly reasonable for JocK WilliS, her original owner.Sandpiper (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There are conflicting sources over the 1895 sale price of Cutty Sark to Ferreira. Basil Lubbock's 1925 "Log of the Cutty Sark" records a sale from Willis to Ferreira for £2,100. But The Mariner's Mirror in 2009 (referenced in the article) reports research into the sale as follows:
- 6 July 1895 - Willis sells Cutty Sark to "John Richards of 37 Wroughton Road, Balham" for an unknown amount (no surviving Bill of Sale).
- c.20 July 1895 - Richards sells Cutty Sark to Ferreira for £1,250, according to a surviving Bill of Sale.
I have preferred the Mariner's Mirror account to Lubbock's, because:
- Lubbock was not a witness to the transaction and may have been reporting hearsay. This compares to the actual Bill of Sale identified by the Mirror;
- The Mariner's Mirror is a peer-reviewed source. Lubbock's "Log" is not;
- Lubbock is a useful source on the vessel itself but not on ownership (for example, he was unaware the vessel was part-owned by John Willis' brother Robert, prior to his death in 1889). This casts some doubt on the accuracy of his reporting of the sale, which occurs after the period of principal interest in the "Log."
Apologies if this seems a long-winded explanation of an obscure issue. But as Lubbock is (rightly) relied on elsewhere in the article, I though it worth explaining why in this instance a different account might be preferred.
Link to 'knots' in the sentence 'The maximum logged speed for Cutty Sark was 17.5 knots.' should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit), not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot. Sorry, I'm not an editor, and don't know how to get the correct link to display as 'knots' rather than 'knots (unit)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thermopylae maiden voyage London to Melbourne 61 or 63 days?
In this article it says that the Thermopylae traveled on its maiden voyage from London to Melbourne "port to port" in 61 days. Yet in the Thermopylae article, it says that it took 63 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
1450 tons of tea
Does anyone think the figure of 1450 tons of tea, quoted for her first trip back from China, is correct. All the sources I have seen give a tea cargo in pounds. If someone has converted that, I don't think the arithmetic is right. I can't find a source to confirm/deny, but for instance Ariel carried 1,230,900 lbs of tea in 1866. I make that 549 tons (UK) or 558 tonnes (metric). Cutty Sark was only slightly larger than Ariel.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtIdRetired (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia technical point
There is something about the following section that inhibits display of all sections that follow it - I can't fix it, so have moved it to be the last section. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Cutty Sark Moored in Melbourne Photograph
The photograph on the Wool trade section titled "Cutty Sark moored in Melbourne" I believe is titled incorrectly. Acording to the book "Log of the Cutty Sark" the ship never visited Melbourne.
There were two docking areas in Melbourne, Port Melbourne and Victoria Dock. The photo is definitely NOT Port Melbourne which is two piers in very flat area and according to the Wikipedia article Victoria dock was not completed till 1892. The Cutty Sark only had two more voyages to Australia after that, 1892 to Sydney and to Brisbane 9th Decemeber 1894.
The photo appears to be taken in Circular key Sydney, The ship is moored on the South Eastern side of the harbor. The Sydney ferry jettys can be clearly seen in the left of the photo, the rising ground in the rear of the photo being the "Rocks" area of Sydney, the area immediately around Victoria Dock Melbourne being flat.
In the Wikipedia article on Circular key there is a photo entitled "Circular Quay, 1892" This I believe shows the area where the ships is moored in the photo in question. The ship being moored to the Quay in the right rear of the photo, the photo in question appears to have been taken from one of the windows on the 1st or 2nd floor of one of the buildings in the extreme right of the photo. In the foreground of the Circular Quay photo are the two ferry piers whose domed roofs can be seen on the left hand side of the image in question.
Too much detail
I think that §Cutty Sark#Investigation conclusion has much more detail than is appropriate to this article. I propose to trim the last five paragraphs.
Also, do we really need §Cutty Sark#Mast specifications? I can imagine keeping total mast heights (if that's important and if they are known) but listing the lengths of the individual segments is a bit too much detail in my view. I propose to delete the entire section.
- I would strongly oppose the amendments that you suggest for the following reasons.
- Fire Investigation Conclusion (1) How the fire was caused is information that may actually prevent this sort of thing happening somewhere in the future. (2) The very first question I asked myself when hearing about the fire was "how on earth could something like this happen?" (3) The fire has become one of the notable things about the ship.
- Mast specifications: I do not understand how you find information on the height of the masts not to be relevant to something that was know as a "tall ship". If you read it carefully, you will see how the rig was reduced when this ship went into "general" trade - so making clear the difference between a clipper and other sailing ships. This sort of information is carried in most of the serious books on clippers - in fact the authors of such books would have gone to a lot of trouble to gather this information. I do not see any reason why a Wikipedia article should be dumbed-down by excluding it.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- It really isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article to be a preventative. The 'how could this happen' question can be adequately answered using fewer words than are currently being used. Yep, the fire is a notable event in the Cutty Sark ' life but is it more notable than her dismasting and rerigging? Perhaps, but to spend so many more words on the investigation's conclusion imbalances the article.
- The text in §Cutty Sark#Mast specifications is unsourced. The two tables are sourced but appear to be copied directly from the John Sankey website which is improper. The information in the Sydney columns of the tables is of questionable accuracy given the method used to obtain it. If mast height is important, then the total mast height for the three masts before and after shortening can be reported, but we really don't need to know the heights of the various sections. Interested readers can, and should get that sort of detail from the sources. Removing excess detail from a Wikipedia article is not a 'dumbing-down'.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the clear light of dawn (or, rather, early evening), I see your point.
- I would add that the text accompanying the Mast Specifications lacks clarity as it talks about the need to cope with the Doldrums, when more precisely the problem is the China Sea. Technically I understand that this is a "doldrum" area, being in the Intertropical Convergence Zone - but most readers would think of this sort of climate being in either the Pacific or the Atlantic. MacGregor (ref number 17 in article, pg 31) states that a fast tea passage was made or lost in the China Sea. So it is right to say that performance across the China Sea is crucial, for which every scrap of sail possible is required. The bit about capturing trade winds with small high sails seems to be nonsense - it might apply with a Thames barge setting a topsail on the river, but in open ocean it surely only provides a larger heeling moment.
- Looking at the article as a whole, one could take the view that most of the material about the fire could be put in a different article- that might improve the balance.
- ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Two different Captains named Moore?
The article says the ship had a Captain F. W. Moore around 1872 and (after a few additional changes of captains – e.g., Tiptaft, Wallace and Bruce) had a Captain Moore, previously of the Blackadder, around 1882. Were those the same person? Whatever the answer, I suggest for it to be clarified in the article, and if anyone knows the given name or initials of the second Captain Moore, for that information to be added (to both this article and the Blackadder article). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Info box - general characteristics
The info box does not have any references beyond one for the GRT, and there the number has been copied across wrong from the source. (Article says 975 GRT whilst the source says 972). It's not really clear what information is being given under "Capacity" - if it is volume, then (a) it looks very large compared to GRT and (b) it should not be converted into tonnes. If it is weight of some sort, (? deadweight tonnage), then it does not look right to me.
What are the sources?
Are the numbers right?