Talk:Cutty Sark

earlier comments

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)

Article name

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)

Requested move

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)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

She's on fire

I've just heard that she is "100% ablaze". 24.4.143.174 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 62.231.137.138 (→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.

julianduk (talk)

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.

julianduk (talk)

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)

Slave trade?

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. —dgies^t_c 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)

Disambiguation required

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)

Looks good - thanks.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

She/It Revisited

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)

All vehicles are technically 'she'. HalfShadow 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur - as per Rehnn83. Greenshed 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree "it" grates horribly to me. PeteVerdon 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it -- changes made. --ukexpat 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fire damage

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)

Indeed. We can't yet say for certain, but it seems the ship will just entail some (very expensive) repair work. Let's be fortunate that she is currently in pieces as part of her restoration. I shouldn't think we're looking at a Brighton West Pier here. Andrew (My talk) 22:59, 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)

Links

One of the links on this page is a link to a model ship sales site. This seems quite inappropriate.

mercator7969.29.1.114 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As does your plugging of another retail outlet. Shame on you. 82.32.238.139 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)

What is the third ship? I might put in a short paragraph about these and the short story, and remove the "see also" section. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

River Leven

Cutty Sark was not built on the clyde it was built on the River Leven! http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item624_leven.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk • contribs)

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. 38.112.47.92 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed Boatman 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks wiki

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)