Talk:Purton Hulks

History section

How are the first two paragraphs of the section relevant to this article? They are the subject of other, linked, articles. We should not need to cover all the geography and history of the river and canal in this article - only the story behind the hulks themselves. That is why we have links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to give context (for the reader who may not know the area) showing why the bank collapse was so significant and led to the call to beach the hulks at the site. The size of the Severn and the commercial importance (at the time) of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal are key to understanding the article in my opinion. If you would like to edit the section (or anything else) that would be great.— Rod ^talk 08:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to explain the location of the hulks in relation to the river and the canal - that is, just upstream of Sheerness? The article doesn't seem to make that clear. Re editing the article - once someone nominates an article for DYK/GA/FA, I personally want nothing to do with it, and stay well away! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to revise it taking into account your comments. I find nomination at DYK/GA/FA is a good way to get others involved to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 08:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

My experience is quite the reverse I'm afraid! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you get bl**dy IPs turning up and interfering, the b*st*rds, oh wait, what ... ? <g> Best wishes to all 82.36.105.25 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Description of Dispatch

The interesting aside on shipbuilding methods is too long for a table cell. Belongs in a subsection or a footnote to the table. Wire723 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley added this making the case that "The Fell's Patent Knees on the iron/wood composite hull of Dispatch are worth a note too".— Rod ^talk 09:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just delete it. I know presentation always matters more than content does. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Crop the image from across the Severn, so as to remove the nearby wall.

• I've had a go at this (and adjusted the brightness slightly).— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge across rows for the equivalent types (the FCBs)

• I'm working on a dodgy wifi connection with a small screen laptop at present, so can't look at how to do this - if you know please do it. It also shows up the table problem with the long description of Dispatch which might be improved by narrowing some of the other table columns or we could move the detail into the text above the table?— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Change the "concrete ship" description for the FCBs. These aren't ships, they weren't built like ships. They aren't the pre-fab Marley panel-built barges that are at Rainham, but they were built quickly and simply as monocoques. Their structure and reinforcement are some away from the large concrete ships that were built.

• As the expert here could you make the change?— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your Marley link took me to Bob Marley (no bad thing) & looking at Marley (disambiguation) I'm not seeing a link to a type of vessel/construction technique.— Rod ^talk 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, you won't. Although surprisingly I can't see a better link either. It's the well-known building construction firm, probably best known today for plastic gutters and sectional garages. The need was to have non-boatyards assist in the urgent need for boatbuilding. Marley knew about pre-fabricated concrete panel construction. The concrete barges beached at Rainham marshes were built by Marley. I know little as yet about the Purton barges. They were built by Wates, now the Wates Group, another concrete building firm from the 1930s. Wates were also involved in the Mulberry Harbours. The Marley barges were pre-cast as panels, the Wates barges as moncoques.

Another unrelated bunch are the half dozen large Creterock barges built up the canal at Hempsted in 1919. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done!

It's just brilliant that this fascinating topic now has its own article! Well done, people. Best wishes 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Images

Can the captions for the images of the individual hulks give the names of the ships shown? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have included the ones in the table, if you hover your mouse over the image it will show. If you are referring to the first few accompanying the text I am unsure which FCB or wooden barge is shown.— Rod ^talk 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Some non-hulk vessels?

Are the following "Purton hulks" for our purposes here?

• Severn King The old ferry, damaged during scrapping work on the railway bridge, grounded and later scrapped at Sharpness. As it was cut up entirely, nothing remains. "Local shipwrecks" is a huge list.
• The railway bridge accident barges, Arkendale H and Wastdale H. These were accidentally damaged and sank. They're in the main river, not the banks, and they sank there rather than being deliberately hulked as erosion defences. However they are visible wrecks at Purton.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a definition of "Hulk" v "Wreck" or similar? As they are included in the list of vessels given by the "Friends of Purton" I included them but open to discussion.— Rod ^talk 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not that I actually know anything, but my feeling is that the three vessels about which Andy asks should be removed or at least footnoted somehow as "other interesting local stuff". They really do not meet our definition of the PH as given in the very first sentence, and I think that's quite important. The fact that Paul B's site mentions them I think is perhaps slightly different, in that we are an encyclopaedia and he isn't, so he would quite rightly be concerned about omitting material which is in some way relevant to his chosen topic, whereas we don't have this constraint and can be a bit more blase about thinking we've probably got it covered elsewhere or can or should. Does this make sense?? Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ise or Ize

At the moment the article has both "-ize" and "-ise" spellings and is voting 2-1 in favour of "-ise". I'm personally very fond of "-ize" in BrE spellings (isn't this EngVarB or Oxford or something??) but it's probably more important that we make it consistent one way or the other and tag it as whatever we have chosen. But what do you think? Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)