|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flying Dutchman article.|
|WikiProject Piracy||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated Start-class)|
- I've made the proper proposal indications. Discussion (if any) is on this page. Radagast 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Merge articles posthaste. --Micahbrwn 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. DocWatson42 06:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Against, unless the ship, as the original source, takes precedence over all other forms of the phrasing. The Flying Dutchman type of dinghy should not be mistaken for the imfamous ocean-going phantom vessel. --Chr.K. 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Why isnt there any reference to Spongebob squarepants in the adaptions section; The flying dutchmen was a funny character in the series.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008
- I, too, am surprised by a complete lack of reference to the Flying Dutchman character from the Spongebob Squarepants series. However, since the cartoon character is a reference to the historical legend in name only and not in substance, I would only expect the Spongebob reference to appear on the main article in a new Reference in popular culture section, and not in the Adaptations section.
- I second the vote that the Spongebob Flying Dutchman character be added to the main article of The Flying Dutchman, but no further than as a popular culture reference.
- Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a way to play jacks called 'the flying dutchman'... ive yet to figure the rules, yet find it very interesting. correlation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Could a disease be the cause for some origins of this story? For example, the book "Principles of Virology" by Enquist, Krug etc... state this on page 5. It might be interesting to put up that connection between a disease, a missing crew, and a "ghost ship". I did not find the origin though, but I did find another article: http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/reed/data/0f669b9a960ba3b2912165fe58860259.html and the pic of a transcript in 1931 http://yellowfever.lib.virginia.edu/newreed/images/large/KAMD1170.JPG
First published when ?
It also claims the story comes from the 17th century Captain Fokke. Thats the 1600's. So at least 100 years before the story appears in print anywhere ?
Van Der Decken
Who was this man? Did he ever existed? Did this ship ever existed, is there any evidence of such ship, leaving the shore, or even being builded? Is this just a myth invented by some mitomans? Was this ever checked, that such man ever lived? If not, then whole thing is just a myth, a story, told to those who easily believe any story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Other Video Game Appearances
The FD also appears in the open source 'Elite' remake "Oolite", as an expansion pack, as a ghostly transparent Cobra Mk. III twitter.com/jontycampbell 11:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiojonty (talk • contribs)
' Flying Dutchman ' or ' Flying Dutchman '?
It seems as if this was originally a description of the ship, rather than the name which would have been painted on her. So should we follow the same principle as with the Fireship of Baie des Chaleurs and the Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait, and not use italics? Or has 'Flying Dutchman' 'become' the actual name of the legendary ship over the years? Or am I being pedantic? Alekksandr (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say that technically per MOS:ITALIC it shouldn't be in italics since in fact it's a nickname that appeared later, which refers to the ghostly soaring, while the ship's actual name (as far as I know) is unknown, so I wouldn't object deitalicization. Brandmeistertalk 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Old and New revision of this page
Why do we have a number of Wikipedia pages covering the same subject topic??, I mean even if the first "Flying Dutchman" page is an old revision of this one, why can't we work to improve whatever is there instead of creating many pages with the same subject topic ? Bobbyshabangu talk 10:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)